Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Michael Stickles

14-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Can anyone tell me in simply what does blasphemy mean? Also what does it mean when they say blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

I have heard that it is an unforgivable sin.

Many Thanks
In Christ
Angela+++

"Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is referred to in Mark 3:28-30, where Jesus says:

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

He said this because they were saying, "He has an evil spirit."

Matthew's account of this (Matthew 12:31-32) is similar:

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

"Blasphemy" is the translation of the Greek word "blasphemeo" (βλασφημεω); it means:

(1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme
(2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at

Here is St. John Chrysostom's explanation of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (from Homily 41 on Matthew):

First then it were well to listen to the very words: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto them. And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

What now is it that He affirms? Many things have ye spoken against me; that I am a deceiver, an adversary of God. These things I forgive you on your repentance, and exact no penalty of you; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, no, not to those who repent. And how can this be right? For even this was forgiven upon repentance. Many at least of those who said these words believed afterward, and all was forgiven them. What is it then that He says? That this sin is above all things unpardonable. Why so? Because Himself indeed they knew not, who He might be, but of the Spirit they received ample experience. For the prophets also by the Spirit said whatever they said; and indeed all in the Old Testament had a very high notion of Him.

What He says, then, is this: Be it so: you are offended at me, because of the flesh with which I am encompassed: can you say of the Spirit also, We know it not? And therefore is your blasphemy unpardonable, and both here and hereafter shall you suffer punishment. For many indeed have been punished here only (as he who had committed fornication,as they who partook unworthily of the mysteries,amongst the Corinthians); but ye, both here and hereafter.

Now as to your blasphemies against me, before the cross, I forgive them: and the daring crime too of the cross itself; neither shall you be condemned for your unbelief alone. (For neither had they, that believed before the cross, perfect faith. And on many occasions He even charges them to make Him known to no man before the Passion; and on the cross He said that this sin was forgiven them.) But as to your words touching the Spirit, they will have no excuse. For in proof that He is speaking of what was said of Him before the crucifixion, He added, "Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost," there is no more forgiveness. Wherefore? Because this is known to you; and the truths are notorious which you harden yourselves against. For though ye say that you know not me; yet of this surely you are not ignorant, that to cast out devils, and to do cures, is a work of the Holy Ghost. It is not then I only whom you are insulting, but the Holy Ghost also. Wherefore your punishment can be averted by no prayers, neither here nor there.

In Christ,
Mike

Kusanagi

14-08-2007, 03:30 PM

St Barsanuphius of Optina told a disciple that when an Orthodox person falls away from the Orthodox faith that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
I think its because the Orthodox faith is the right one guided by the Holy Spirit and to fall away from it is a a blasphemy against it.

Effie Ganatsios

14-08-2007, 05:24 PM

In the context of its use in the New Testament, Christ said this when the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

Christ started performing miracles, as far as we know, after His baptism and after the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove descended on him. To accuse him of performing miracles by the power of the Devil is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

This is from http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/blasphemy.shtml

"However, whoever knowingly and persistently rejects the most saving mercy of God, which is a blessing of the Holy Spirit, and consciously calls the deeds of the omnipotent God the works of the Devil, he has no means of repentance, and without repentance there is not and can never be salvation.

The Holy Church thus determines that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is conscious, hardened opposition to the truth. The Holy Spirit constitutes all truth (John 16:13, 14:26, 15:26), He is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17); thus, the Lord Himself calls Him."

Angie

16-08-2007, 11:28 AM

Effie Ganatsios

16-08-2007, 04:28 PM

Thankyou all for this.

Effie, you have shown us about orthodoxphotos web site. They used to have a section of Holy things happening. Eg Blood coming out of an icon, miraculous pictures and Angels. Would you know what has happened to this section?

In Christ
Angela+++

I'm sorry Angela, I don't know. From what I have learnt from other sources (not this website) a lot of the so-called miracles involving icons are sometimes just the result of natural materials reacting to damp or heat or something else. I haven't read a lot about things like this.

Effie

Rick H.

22-08-2007, 04:04 PM

Can anyone tell me in simply what does blasphemy mean?

Also what does it mean when they say blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

I have heard that it is an unforgivable sin.

Many Thanks
In Christ
Angela+++

Dear Angela,

I think there are some good answers below, especially in Effie's and Mike's post, so I will not add to definition.

However, as it relates to the second part of your question, I feel compelled to share with you a passage from St. John of Karpathos. He writes to the monks in India here with this:

It is not only in this period close to the end of the world that the devil will 'speak words against the Most High' (Dan 7:25). Even now, acting through our thoughts, he sometimes sends up to heaven monstrous blasphemies against the Most High, against all He has created and against the Holy Mysteries of Christ. But, climbing the rock of spiritual knowledge we should not be terrified by this or astonished at the insolence of the avenger. Growing ever more fervent in our faith and prayer, we shall receive help from above and so resist the enemy.

Additionally, there is a thinking that a Christian cannot be possessed by the devil, but he/she can be oppressed/harrassed. When there is a harassment of this sort, it has been the experience of others as well as myself, that the words of James ring true everytime:

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you."

Based on my past experience, this is a serious question, one that deeply disturbs many people. But, in the End, I think it comes down to a question of Who are we going to yield ourselves to? Who will we surrender to and be being filled by and controlled by?

What does this mean on a practical level[?] . . .each as is appropriate for oneself. At times, the very thing that is a vehicle of freedom for one is a trap/snare for another. And, as St. John of Karpathos concludes:

Strengthened by the Lord, winged by joy, filled with courage by the holy angels that guide it, encircled and protected by the light of faith, it answers the malicious devil with great boldness: 'Enemy of God, fugitive from heaven, wicked slave, what have I to do with you?' You have no authority over me; Christ the Son of God has authority over me and over all things.

The question of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit can move from being a deeply disturbing question to a non-issue, with great speed, for the one who has a personal relationship with Christ. For the one who has been ensnared by the enemy, it is a grave issue, but for the one who submits to the authority of the King and his domain, he/she is winged by joy and filed with courage.

Makes one wonder if Keats was a fan of St. John of Karpathos? :)

Joy In Christ,
Rick

Angie

23-08-2007, 08:46 AM

Thankyou Rick for this information.

In Christ
Angela+++

Paul Cowan

24-08-2007, 05:21 AM

Angela,

On Ancientfaithradio.com under All Saints Homilies, Fr. Pat in one of his many sermons defines the Unforgiveable sin. Forgive me, I forget which of his sermons it is under, but it was one of the Holy Week sermons. If you don't mind listening to them all you will find it there. He is rather emphatic as to the definition. I don't want to slaughter his definition so I won't say it here. He says it much better anyway.

Paul

Angie

24-08-2007, 10:54 AM

Thanks Paul

Owen Jones

26-08-2007, 04:42 PM

What Our Lord means by the unforgivable sin is when a person in a position of religious authority misuses that authority to turn religion into a yoke around peoples' necks, rather than something that makes us free. The context is the Pharisaical denial of the true source of the miraculous, when they are not in charge of the miracle. Therefore, they are compelled to demonize that which they do not control.

M.C. Steenberg

26-08-2007, 05:05 PM

Dear Owen, in your recent post you wrote:

What Our Lord means by the unforgivable sin is when a person in a position of religious authority misuses that authority to turn religion into a yoke around peoples' necks, rather than something that makes us free. The context is the Pharisaical denial of the true source of the miraculous, when they are not in charge of the miracle. Therefore, they are compelled to demonize that which they do not control.

This is interesting. While I agree with you as regards the severe sin that each of the things you indicates comprises, I'm not entirely sure I see the connection to the 'unforgivable sin' of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Have you some text in mind that draws things out in this way?

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

26-08-2007, 05:21 PM

The statement on the unforgiveable sin is so obviously directed specifically to the Pharisees, going back to verse 22 I think, it hardly seems worth mentioning. Yet it seems that Christians are forever foraging for some type of theoretical or universal explanation for this text. It's very concrete and specifically directed. If there is a universal explanation, it is that I should avoid this same pharisaical attitude at all cost. But it also means that any person in a position of formal religious authority over another ought to be especially on guard against the temptation of assuming that somehow he might be in control of when and where the Holy Spirit might be permitted to act. We can, of course, devote our full attention to what Christ REALLY meant by unforgivable, which seems to be the thrust of most patristic commentaries, but that should not preclude us from thinking about to whom the attack is directed.

Father David Moser

26-08-2007, 09:08 PM

When trying to understand the "unforgiveable sin" of "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" we first have to look at the role of the Holy Spirit in our spiritual lives. Those prayers addressed directly to the Holy Spirit begin to give us our first clue for those prayers are for the most part prayers of repentance. (See particularly the prayer to the Holy Spirit quoted below in the evening prayers for a good example).

Prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian
to the Most Holy Spirit

O Lord, Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, have compassion and mercy on Thy sinful servant and pardon my unworthiness, and forgive me all the sins that I humanly committed today, and not only humanly but even worse than a beast - my voluntary sins, known and unknown, from my youth and from evil suggestions, and from my brazenness, and from boredom. If I have sworn by Thy Name or blasphemed it in thought, blamed or reproached anyone, or in my anger have detracted or slandered anyone, or grieved anyone, or if I have got angry about anything, or have told a lie, if I have slept unnecessarily, or if a beggar has come to me and I despised or neglected him, or if I have troubled my brother or quarrelled with him, or if I have condemned anyone, or have boasted, or have been proud, or lost my temper with anyone, or if when standing in prayer my mind has been distracted by the glamour of this world, or if I have had depraved thoughts or have overeaten, or have drunk excessively, or have laughed frivolously, or have thought evil, or have seen the attraction of someone and been wounded by it in my heart, or said indecent things, or made fun of my brother's sin when my own faults are countless, or been neglectful of prayer, or have done some other wrong that I cannot remember - for I have done all this and much more - have mercy, my Lord and Creator, on me Thy wretched and unworthy servant, and absolve and forgive and deliver me in Thy goodness and love for men, so that, lustful, sinful and wretched as I am, I may lie down and sleep and rest in peace. And I shall worship, praise and glorify Thy most honourable Name, with the Father and His only-begotten Son, now and ever, and for all ages. Amen.

The fathers also teach that the Holy Spirit shapes and forms our conscience and that the "voice of the conscience" is in fact the prompting of the Holy Spirit urging us to "turn away from evil and do good".

Given this perspective of the Holy Spirit as the one to prompts us to repentance then it seems to follow that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to deny the need to repent, to deny that we do indeed require the turning away from evil and that we are indeed mired in sins.

The unforgivable sin therefore is the refusal to repent - the sin for which there is no forgiveness is the sin of which we do not repent. All sin can be forgiven - except those for which there is no repentance.

Fr David Moser

Paul Cowan

26-08-2007, 09:48 PM

Mark 3:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

I think Fr. Pat Reardon in his homily I referenced above might have been on target when he says the unpardonable is sin is the confusing of the Holy spirit with the demonic spirits.

However when Jesus said this He had already called the peoples to Him and was talking to them in a parable. So it not only applies to the clergy, but more especially to the laity.

Paul

Owen Jones

26-08-2007, 09:48 PM

I respectfully disagree, Fr. The context really has little or nothing to do with repentance. If lack of repentance were the unforgivable sin, then we are truly without hope. It seems to me that the context is quite clear, that we deny the Holy Spirit when we see a good thing occur -- a miraculous healing for example. We say that it could not have come from God because we were not consulted first!!!

Michael Stickles

27-08-2007, 12:19 AM

Actually, Owen, your view does not really conflict with Fr. David's at all, when looked at from a slightly different perspective.

Archpriest Seraphim Slobodskoy, in chapter 34 of his book The Law of God, had this to say regarding the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit:

However, whoever knowingly and persistently rejects the most saving mercy of God, which is a blessing of the Holy Spirit, and consciously calls the deeds of the omnipotent God the works of the Devil, he has no means of repentance, and without repentance there is not and can never be salvation.

Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto puts it this way:

The correct interpretation, as it is given to us by the Church Fathers, is this: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the denial by man out of hatred of God's power to save him. Even more simply, the man who does not believe that the grace of God--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--can save him, closes his heart to the actions of the Holy Spirit; he does not accept Grace. He does not proceed to repentance. He fights against the sanctifying and saving act of God. He creates within himself a sorrowful and incurable condition.

First, the deeds of the Holy Spirit are rejected, attributed to the evil one. Through this the person closes their heart to the action of the Holy Spirit, and thus cannot be brought to that "godly sorrow" which "brings repentance that leads to salvation" (1 Cor. 7:10). You focused on the initial action which leads to hardening; Fr. David focused on the ultimate effect which would show that what had happened was indeed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and not just an expression of lamentable (but still forgivable) ignorance.

In Christ,
Mike

Owen Jones

27-08-2007, 02:53 PM

I still respectfully disagree. The warning is more specifically targeted to religious leaders who are in a position of religious/spiritual authority over others. Their problem is that they claim, due to their position of formal religious authority, that they can control when and where the HOly Spirit acts. Their denial of the Holy Spirit is really a claim of power over the Holy Spirit. This warning is a very strong one, and is diluted if we generalize it to all people, most of whom go through phases in life in which they entertain doubts about God. Who think that they are beyond saving. And would certainly be contradicted by ST. John Chrysostom's Paschal sermon...

Michael Stickles

27-08-2007, 03:29 PM

This warning is a very strong one, and is diluted if we generalize it to all people, most of whom go through phases in life in which they entertain doubts about God. Who think that they are beyond saving.

Ah, but the passage does not address doubts. It addresses knowing and conscious rejection of the Spirit's works. One who truly has doubts is not really capable of this, because such a person wouldn't know what he or she was rejecting.

Archpriest Seraphim and Metropolitan Sotirios both describe someone who knows, at some level, that what they are seeing or experiencing is the work of the Holy Spirit of God, and yet consciously, deliberately and completely rejects and denies that. By their own choice they have cut themselves off from the fount of Grace.

A person may run from the Spirit, resist the Spirit's working within them, doubt the power of God, and feel themselves beyond redemption. But none of these are fatal. I know of many times in my own life where I resisted, even fought against, what I knew the Holy Spirit was doing. But it was not a complete and conscious rejection; my resistance was a reaction born from fear and pride, and at some deeper level than these I was hoping for God to defeat me. A person who harbors something like that hope, however faint it may be in their heart, has not blasphemed the Spirit and is not beyond saving.

In Christ,
Mike

Owen Jones

27-08-2007, 04:13 PM

However, this does not change the context of the warning, which is the Pharisees. Christ can handle their denial of Him, due to his humility. But he cannot abide by the Pharisaical rejection of The Good when it is so obvious before their eyes. Perhaps they have a neuro-biological illness?

Andreas Moran

27-08-2007, 04:52 PM

Is there, perhaps, a difference between sinning against the Holy Spirit and blaspheming Him?

Kornelius

27-08-2007, 05:48 PM

I would like to address another crucial aspect regarding the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It concerns the topic of salvation outside the church.

It has been emphasized by fathers and saints of the church that when we do not attribute salvation exclusively through Christ and his True Church, we relegate the role of Christ from the sole and unique source of redemption, to one of the many alternative sources of salvation. This, according to our fathers is one of the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit.

Below, I would evoke the blessed words of St. Ignatios Brianchaninov on this theme selected from the saint's letters.

"Vainly and erroneously you think and say that virtuous... Muslims will be saved, that is they will join intercourse with God! Vainly you consider the contrary notion a novelty, a brief error! No! Such is the eternal teaching of the true Church, both Old Testament and New. The Church has always confessed that there exists one means of salvation: the Redeemer! She has confessed that the most virtuous of the fallen really do descend to Hell. Did the righteous of the True Church, the illumined from whom shone the Holy Spirit, the prophets and wonderworkers, believers in the Redeemer's coming but with the demise of the anticipated coming of the Redeemer, descend to Hell so that, as you wish, the Muslims who neither recognize nor believe in the Redeemer receive, because they seem to you good people, that salvation which is delivered solely-- solely, I repeat to you, by means of -- belief in the Redeemer? -- Christians! Know Christ! -- Witness that you don't know Him, that you denied him in claiming the possibility of salvation without Him for some kind of virtue! Claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ denies Him and, maybe not consciously, falls into the grave sin of blasphemy. "Therefore we conclude," says the Holy Apostle Paul, "that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28) "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Romans 3:22-4). You will object: "The Holy Apostle James requires without fail good works; he teaches that 'faith, if it hath not works, is dead' (James 2:17)." Look again at what the Holy Apostle James requires. You will see that he, just like all God-inspired writers of Holy Scripture, requires the works of faith, and not the virtues of our fallen state! He requires living faith, confirmed by the deeds of the new man, and not the virtues of the fallen state, which are repugnant to faith. He cites the deeds of Patriarch Abraham, the work from which appeared the faith of a righteous man: this work consisted of offering as a sacrifice to God his only begotten son. To offer one's son as a sacrifice-- this is totally not a virtue according to human nature: it is a virtue as the fulfilment of the command of God, as a work of faith. Take a good look at the New Testament and in general all of Holy Scripture: you will find that it demands fulfilment of the commandments of God, that this fulfilment is called works, that from this fulfilment of God's commandments faith in God comes to life, as functioning; without works faith is dead, lacking any movement. And contrary to this, you will find that virtuous works of the fallen state, done out of feeling, blood, impulses or tenderheartedness-- are prohibited, repudiated! And namely for these virtues you like... the Muslims! To them, though it were repudiation of Christ, you want to give salvation."

Letter No. 203

Although, St. Ignatios employs primarily Islam to make his point or rather Church's point regarding the blasphemy of finding salvation outside Christianity, it is obvious that any religion that denies Christ as the Son of God, and sole Redeemer and His Orthodox Church as the only path toward Him, falls into the same category with Islam. Accordingly, finding redeeming values in them falls under the grave sin of blasphemy.

In this age, as we are constantly assailed by the propaganda of relativism, i.e., truth may be found everywhere and nowhere in the absolute form, we must heed very seriously to the saint's words. I will repeat what I have said in previous posts. Relativism is only a step away from pan-theism, and pan-theism is only a step away from atheism. For those who are not aware, this is the quintessential agenda of the ecumenical movement: First, a world where everything goes (relativism and pan-theism), which will ultimately infinitesimally dilute the essence of every religion and bring them on the verge of exctinction and eventually atheism.

Certainly, we all know that the final victory belongs to Christ and His Church, and that these sinister forces will fail miserably. Therefore, let us not fall victims of their schemes or influences and consciously or unconsciously blaspheme against the Holy Spirit of God. As the saint stated: "Claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ denies Him and, maybe not consciously, falls into the grave sin of blasphemy.

Michael Stickles

27-08-2007, 07:42 PM

However, this does not change the context of the warning, which is the Pharisees.

True, but I still believe that the principle applies more broadly, in line with Hebrews 6:4-6. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Perhaps they have a neuro-biological illness?

Could be. Or maybe a psycho-pneumatic (or pneumato-psychic) one?

In Christ,
Mike

Owen Jones

29-08-2007, 04:24 PM

Well, obviously Jesus' attack on the Pharisees is still relevant to us, because the attack is on the spirit of phariseeism, not some ancient, defunct religious sect.

Owen Jones

29-08-2007, 04:38 PM

Well, my prolegoumena on the subject is a good bit different than that of Fr. Ignatius. While repentance and faith, not just general faith in God, but a faith in God as Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is central to salvation, and salvation involves virtue, however, who is virtuous? Show me a virtuous man! Christ Himself says, you call me good? No man is good, no not one...only the Father in Heaven.

It seems that Fr. Ignatius has turned Christ's teachings on its head. Just as Christ suffered for all, so does the Church. In our sufferings, and in our rational sacrifice, it becomes an offering, not just for believers, but for all men, and for all creation. And there are certain practical considerations. If all non Orthodox Christians are condemned, and if we approach all of them from a spirit of condemnation, what is our witness to them going to be? Is it going to be love and compassion, or condemnation? Are we going to hold back that which we have in our possession, because they are already condemned, and there is no hope for them?

I don't think relativism has much to do with these issues. There have always been different religions and beliefs. Christianity has always had to contend with the tension between its claims of universality and the reality of its particularism vz other cultures and religions. And so there has always been the fact of relativism. This problem is treated Biblically, in mythic form if you will, when God created different languages and cultures as a punishment for our sinfulness.

The Christian argument has always been that our God is more powerful, more loving, more compassionate, more forgiving than other gods, and that he has triumphed over the hold that Satan has over the world. For those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Owen Jones

29-08-2007, 04:40 PM

...but this argument does not stand on its own, it has to be demonstrated in the way we live our lives. We have to have something that others see and want. It is usually interpreted by others as a weakness. But in Christ, our weakness is our strength. So we need not be defensive about the fact of opposing faiths and cultures, as if their very existence calls our faith into question, or if we are not being absolutists in our faith, that that somehow cuts us off at the knees.

Kornelius

29-08-2007, 08:05 PM

It seems that Fr. Ignatius has turned Christ's teachings on its head.

Since you say that St. Ignatius (by the way not simply Fr. Ignatius) has turned Christ’s teachings on its head, I see the need to address certain aspect of the Orthodox Church and Her proper relationship with non-orthodox or non-Christians. For those who are offended by thinking that my response is off the theme of the thread I would like to remind them that addressing the latter is relevant to our thread’s theme which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Besides, Orthodox theology is not to be compartmentalized. Every part of it is integrated with the rest, and ultimately we can’t discuss anything about Orthodoxy or its relations with others, without drawing our conclusions from the realm of its Theanthropic and Christocentric nature. This is exactly what I intend to do.

Just as Christ suffered for all, so does the Church. In our sufferings, and in our rational sacrifice, it becomes an offering, not just for believers, but for all men, and for all creation. And there are certain practical considerations. If all non Orthodox Christians are condemned, and if we approach all of them from a spirit of condemnation, what is our witness to them going to be? Is it going to be love and compassion, or condemnation? Are we going to hold back that which we have in our possession, because they are already condemned, and there is no hope for them?

St. Ignatius does not say that they are condemned. He is simply stating the obvious that they will be condemned if they do not embrace Christ and His Church. You perceive the stating of the obvious as lack of love, or as lack of ecumenical dialogue and simply as the promulgation of a dooming sentence for them. Unfortunately you are not alone. The Orthodox Church still has no official stance towards the ecumenical movement and the concept of ecumenism. Among Orthodox there are basically three possible attitudes to this problem. Some are a priori in favor of ecumenism; others are totally against it; a third group is for ecumenism but subject to specific conditions.

Let us see what Fr. Justin Popovich, has to say about ecumenical dialogue in the name of ‘love’. “Ecumenism is a collective name for pseudo-Christians, for the pseudo-Churches of Western Europe. Their common evangelical name is ‘ultimate heresy’. Why? Because, through the course of history, diverse heresies have negated or distorted certain characteristics of the Theanthropos, the Lord Christ, and these European heresies leave the Theanthropos in His entirety on one side and put European man in His place. There is, in fact, no substantial difference between papism, Protestantism, ecumenism and the other sects whose name is legion.”

Let us see, also, Fr. Popovich’s view on ‘relating’ to others ‘out of Christ’s love'. “The contemporary ‘dialogue of love’, that is conducted in the form of empty sentimentalism, is in fact, a faithless negation of the saving sanctification of the Holy Spirit and belief of the truth (II Thess. 2:13), i.e. the solely-saving love of the truth (II Thess. 2:10). The essence of love is truth, and love lives by speaking the truth…There can be no ‘dialogue of love’ without the dialogue of truth. Such a dialogue is otherwise unnatural and false. Hence the commandment of the Christ-bearing Apostle: Let love be without dissimulation (Rom. 12:9)…The heretical, humanistic division and separation of Love and Truth is simply the sign of a lack of theanthropic balance and common sense. In any case, it is never the way of the holy fathers.”

That is why when St. Ignatius is stating the Truth that there is no salvation outside the Church and thinking otherwise is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, he is not lacking love, he is being truthful, for love without truth is pseudo-love.

Well, my prolegoumena on the subject is a good bit different than that of Fr. Ignatius. While repentance and faith, not just general faith in God, but a faith in God as Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is central to salvation, and salvation involves virtue, however, who is virtuous? Show me a virtuous man! Christ Himself says, you call me good? No man is good, no not one...only the Father in Heaven.

A virtuous man in other religions is someone who abides to the rules of their religions. St. Ignatius is not referring to what a virtuous man means in Orthodoxy.

I don't think relativism has much to do with these issues. There have always been different religions and beliefs. Christianity has always had to contend with the tension between its claims of universality and the reality of its particularism vz other cultures and religions. And so there has always been the fact of relativism. This problem is treated Biblically, in mythic form if you will, when God created different languages and cultures as a punishment for our sinfulness.

Relativism has everything to do with these issues, but you are completely missing my point here. The relativism I was speaking about in my post is not primarily about diversity of cultures, customs and languages. I might add, however, that the metaphysical nihilism of western culture must be replaced with a Theanthropic and Christocentric culture. After all, wasn’t this diverse humanistic culture the author of two fatal World-Wars?

But, this is beside my point. I was clearly speaking for a relativism that applies ad hoc to religion, theology and ethics. “Relativism, - says Fr. Justin Popovich – in the philosophy of European humanistic progress necessarily resulted in relativism in ethics, and relativism is the source of anarchism and nihilism…In the European West, Christianity has gradually been transformed into humanism. In both Papism and Protestantism, man has displaced the Theanthropos, as the greatest value and the highest criterion. Papism has determinedly and persistently worked at replacing the God-Man by a Man, until it has replaced Him forever with the ephemeral ‘infallible’ man, with the dogma of papal infallibility. By this dogma, the Pope was clearly and decisively pronounced to be not only higher than a man, but also higher than the holy apostles, the holy fathers and the holy Ecumenical Councils. With such distancing from the Theanthropos, from the universal Church as a theanthropic organism, Papism has outdone Luther, the creator of Protestantism. In fact, the first, radical protest in the name of humanism against Christ the God-Man and His theanthropic organism, the Church, can be traced to Papism, not Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first and earliest Protestantism…In principle, every Protestant is an independent pope, an infallible pope, in all matters of faith. This inevitably leads from one spiritual death to another, and there is no end to this dying, for man’s spiritual deaths are innumerable.”

You acknowledge the fact that there is tension between Christianity and other cultures, but you simply provide a biblical solution recalling the confusion of languages brought upon nations by God. Well, this is not the solution. First, there was no Christianity during the construction of the Ziggurat of Babel. Back then it was a humanistic endeavor on behalf of people who were yet to witness the epiphany and fullness of revelation in the Person of Christ, the Theanthropos. Now, however, that the Truth of Christ is existing in the world for over two millennia, the Church must not fall prey of relativism, i.e., adjusting its nature out of ‘love’ for the sake of reaching others. This is the relativism I am writing about. The Church can’t save anyone unless she maintains Her Truth, Her Theanthropic and Christocentric nature. This applies not only to other religions but to every area of life. Fr. Popovich warns us: “According to the theanthropic philosophy of life and the world, man, society and the state must adjust to the Church as the eternal ideal, but the Church must never adjust to them, and, most especially, not be subservient to them.”

So we need not be defensive about the fact of opposing faiths and cultures, as if their very existence calls our faith into question, or if we are not being absolutists in our faith, that that somehow cuts us off at the knees.

Truth is like pregnancy. You can’t be half pregnant. So it is with the Truth, you either have it or you don’t. As orthodox you must know that we do have it in our Orthodox Church. St. Cyprian says: “No one can take God as his Father unless he takes the Church as his mother.” This confirms what St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was saying regarding the true faith as an absolutely must have criterion for salvation.

Owen Jones

29-08-2007, 08:59 PM

I'm not a fan of ecumenism. I was referring to evangelism. If I were raised a Muslim or a Mormon or a Buddhist, it seems to me to be hardly my fault. And to condemn me to everlasting perdition for it seems to me to be missing the mark, that's all. It seems to me that it is God's judgement against us that we ought to be worried about, for the coolness of our faith, or the opposite extreme, which is Phariseeism. There just seems to me to be a tinge in that in Fr. Ignatius.

As for relativism, I don't think it is relativism to condemn the teaching, but to hold out for the salvation of those who are misguided. Islam, so far as I can tell, is a kind of embedded Phariseeism.

I count my self lucky and blessed having found Orthodoxy, having been raised by a very liberal atheist and a liberal baptist, who were both quite hypocritical IMHO. But I don't know in the least what God is doing with them, now that they are both deceased, and I pray for their salvation. How could I do anything else?

Kornelius

29-08-2007, 10:41 PM

It seems to me that it is God's judgement against us that we ought to be worried about, for the coolness of our faith, or the opposite extreme, which is Phariseeism. There just seems to me to be a tinge in that in Fr. Ignatius.

Neither St. Ignatius, nor I said that simply being Orthodx means you are saved, whereas others are doomed. Having the right faith means Christ will ask more from one and will judge one more harshly than the others in the day of judgment.

If I were raised a Muslim or a Mormon or a Buddhist, it seems to me to be hardly my fault. And to condemn me to everlasting perdition for it seems to me to be missing the mark, that's all...I count my self lucky and blessed having found Orthodoxy, having been raised by a very liberal atheist and a liberal baptist, who were both quite hypocritical IMHO.

What about the first Christian of the Church of the first centuries. On top of being not born Christian, they were also severely persecuted for becoming so. Yet, with that little knowledge of Christianity, they washed the foundations of the Church with their blood. The more we approach our modern times, the smaller this world of ours becomes via traveling and technology. I seriously doubt the fact that as of now there are any Muslims or Mormons or Budhist who did not have access to the Truth. The key element is accepting it in our hearts. Saul did so before becoming known as St. Paul the apostle of Christ. The same way you found Orthodoxy, despite your background. Not out of luck though, as you say, but out of searching for the truth with a pure heart. I admire you for that! The question arising is why do you think others are any different or to be treated any differently from you? Why can't they find the Truth like you did?

...having been raised by a very liberal atheist and a liberal baptist, who were both quite hypocritical IMHO. But I don't know in the least what God is doing with them, now that they are both deceased, and I pray for their salvation. How could I do anything else?

That is the only thing we can do for the salvation of our souls and for the ones who have slept. I don't know either where the souls of the departed orthodox have gone. There is always hope however, as long as we pray for them. After all, even Emperor Trajan was baptised in hell through a unique baptism: the baptism of tears from a godly man here on earth. This same godly man who had such immense love for a sinner in hell, shared the same view as St. Ignatius about the Truth. In Orthodoxy, stating the truth, does not mean lacking in love.

Owen Jones

30-08-2007, 12:21 AM

So you've answered your own objection...

Owen Jones

30-08-2007, 01:41 AM

"Truth is like pregnancy. You can’t be half pregnant. So it is with the Truth, you either have it or you don’t."

Actually, this is not the case. Truth is a realm. It's something that one enters into with humility, penitence, faith, etc. One is either closer to it or farther away from it. One does not ever possess it totally. In fact, it's not something you possess at all; if anything it's something that possesses you.

It certainly is not the case that Truth can be defined as right doctrine that is back up by rational argument and historical texts. Defending truth involves those things to be sure, but only so that we stay on the right track. It's not the truth itself. Truth is a way of life that is in union with God. The doctrine is designed as a kind of protection against quack theories and ideas that would lead us toward a different goal, along a different path that would inevitably lead us to self-delusion, in the same way that a medical protocol will instruct a doctor not to treat a heart patient with a cancer pill.

The claim that Orthodoxy is true because it is the right doctrine, and all other doctrines are false, and if I proclaim that vociferiously that somehow it thereby even more true, is unfortunately a spiritual inapt way of putting it, which actually achieves the opposite of its purpose. Such a way of asserting the truth actually contributes to relativism, rather than combating it. Because the opposing truth simply argues the same thing.

Am I willing to put my life on the line for this true path? That's a more important question. If persecuted, or tortured, or ridiculed by society, will I recant? If my wife and family are being tortured before my eyes to force me to deny my faith, what will be my response? If I live in a liberal, secular society, am I more in tune with its priorities than that of the Gospel? What is the object of my thoughts, most of the time? Do I worship false gods? Do I bear false witness? Am I envious and jealous of others who seem to have an easier life?

So truth has a dynamic, living quality to it, or it does not exist at all. It's only an empty shell at best, something that I can blithely type out on my computer screen when there is no cost to me.

Owen Jones

30-08-2007, 01:45 AM

But for purposes of this thread, this idea that Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisees for demonizing the work of the Holy Spirit because they are offended that they were not consulted about this healing has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of different religions. And of course we know nothing specific from the Gospel about how Christians ought to view people of other religions, other than that the Beatitudes apply in all cases. Other than the fact that the Jews would reject Him and the pagans would accept Him.

Nina

30-08-2007, 03:55 AM

It has been emphasized by fathers and saints of the church that when we do not attribute salvation exclusively through Christ and his True Church, we relegate the role of Christ from the sole and unique source of redemption, to one of the many alternative sources of salvation. This, according to our fathers is one of the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit.

"Orthodox spirituality differs distinctly from any other "spirituality" of an eastern or western type. There can be no confusion among the various spiritualities, because Orthodox spirituality is God-centered, whereas all others are man-centered." The Difference ... (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx)

M.C. Steenberg

31-08-2007, 12:08 AM

Owen makes a critical point in his post above. Truth is not a thing to be possessed; and Orthodox Christianity is not about 'having' the truth. It is about finding Truth, Christ, and being drawn into him. Truth is the realm of relationship with the One who truly is, as he truly is (as St Irenaeus of Lyons writes). It is not a collection of axioms or observations about reality, of 'facts' and 'truths'. It is the experience of life drawn up in Christ's, into which the creature always grows, ever possessing yet never containing - ascending always 'from glory to glory' (St Gregory of Nyssa).

The moment we speak of 'having' the truth, as some objectifiable thing, possessed or un-possessed, we fail to find in truth the living encounter with the living God.

Andreas Moran

31-08-2007, 12:22 PM

. . . because truth is Christ.

Kornelius

31-08-2007, 04:18 PM

Truth is like pregnancy. You can’t be half pregnant. So it is with the Truth, you either have it or you don’t. As orthodox you must know that we do have it in our Orthodox Church. St. Cyprian says: “No one can take God as his Father unless he takes the Church as his mother.” This confirms what St. Ignatius Brianchaninov was saying regarding the true faith as an absolutely must have criterion for salvation.

You take this paragraph I wrote out of context. This is about the nature of the Truth in Orthodoxy which is not relative but absolute. What I mean here is that in our Church we can't say that we have a partial truth and the rest dwells in other denominations. We have in our Church the fullness of Truth in Her Sacraments and the dogmas of The Seven Ecumenical Councils. “The historical Theanthropos, The Lord Jesus Christ, has supremely demonstrated that He is everything in all worlds to the human being: the essence and being, the life, the mind the understanding, the heart and conscience, the good, the virtue, the love, the light, the way and the truth, the justice, the joy, the salvation, the resurrection and the ascension, the immortality, eternity and paradise. He is all this through Theanthropic Body, the Holy, Apostolic and Patristic Church, the Church of Holy Tradition: the Orthodox Church.” (Fr. Justin Popovich)

If you wanted to know what I think the Truth is, you simply read the other nine paragraphs in my post. I believe it is very obvious. Anyways, I will repeat it for you below very clearly, so that there are no more trivial misunderstandings.

Actually, this is not the case. Truth is a realm. It's something that one enters into with humility, penitence, faith, etc. One is either closer to it or farther away from it. One does not ever possess it totally. In fact, it's not something you possess at all; if anything it's something that possesses you.

Truth is not a realm as you say, for that is as impersonal as saying that God is some sort of divine cosmic consciousness. Truth is a Person, Truth is Christ. Let me put it in the words of the greatest contemporary theologian, the late Fr. Justin Popovich: "If Truth were anything but Christ the Theanthropos, it would be small, insufficient, ephemeral and mortal. It would be such if it were a concept or an idea, a theory, a scheme, reason, or science, a philosophy, a culture, man or mankind, the world or all the worlds, anybody or anything or all these put together. But the Truth is a Person, the Person of Christ the Theanthropos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and this is why it is perfect, enduring and eternal."

To go back, to our initial theme, which is, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, I believe that Orthodoxy is not a candy store where we decide to chose or not to chose whatever we like or dislike from the teachings of our Church or Her saints, simply because it does not benefit or fit our reality or our intellectual and spiritual upbringing.

M.C. Steenberg

31-08-2007, 05:10 PM

Kornelius

31-08-2007, 06:41 PM

I get the sense that Kornelius has fundamentally misunderstood what Owen is attempting to say. The reality of truth as a person, Christ, means that truth can never be a thing possessed, but a relationship that is experienced. Even in the great dogmatic statements of the Church - the creed, the statements of the councils - we do not 'have' the truth. What are possessed are the sure means, the unfailing tools, for the authentic encounter with the Truth. The creed, for example, is not a dogmatic entity, sufficient in its own right; it is the sure guide to the right experience of Christ - which is why it is recited as a 'preamble' to the anaphora in the Divine Liturgy.

I am against the term possession because it is erroneous when applied to our union with Christ. The union with Christ is not a passive event, i.e., being possessed by the Spirit of God, but a synergetic event. Christ’s divinity descends upon us while our humanity through His Grace ascends toward Him. Being possessed takes man’s efforts out of the equation.

Owen says that “if anything [Truth] it's something that possesses you.” This annihilates the freedom God has granted us, and takes us back to the pagan myths of ancient gods who could possess anyone at their will and mankind had no choice. See in particular the example of goddess Fortuna and people’s impotence towards her actions.

I still insist that the Truth of the Person of Christ is manifest in its fullness in the Orthodox Church. By that I do not mean the Essence of the Person of Christ, which is known only to the other two hypostases of the Holy Trinity. That will be forever unknown to us even in the age to come. That can never be expressed in dogmas or doctrines. Despite the fact that Truth is impossible to be expressed in our fallible language, Truth is still made manifest in its fullness in our Church. “Thus the Church is the fullness of Him that filleth all in all (Eph.1:23)…the church is the fullness of all divine truth, divine justice, love, and eternity; the fullness of all divine as well as of all human perfection, as the Lord Christ is the God-Man, a twofold unity of the fullness of divinity and humanity" (Fr. Justin Popovich)

What is then this fullness of Him in the Church? It is the uncreated energies of Christ. These are known to godly people. Theosis is a union, an intercourse if you will between the godly people and Christ. "The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic - as in the case of the human nature of Christ - nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is a union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God." Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1998), p.87.

The conversation with Owen never dealt with the fullness of Truth in terms of Christ’s Essence. My conviction is that Owen has a problem with the fullness of Truth found exclusively in the Church, in the context of the full manifestation of the uncreated energies of the Person of Christ in the Orthodox Church. Not being absolutists in our faith - Owen says - does not somehow cuts us off at the knees. Well I do.

But as to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: I think it safe to say that an injunction against picking-and-choosing what to accept and what to reject, while certainly a thing to be abhorred and which indeed is a very real kind of blasphemy, is nonetheless not what is being spoken of by Christ in this passage from the Gospels.

The picking-and-choosing is not about the passage from the Gospel, but about what St. Ignatius said about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, that is, when we Christians believe in the salvation of those who do not believe in Christ. If one of my relatives is atheist that means that unless that person comes to Christ, he is doomed. Unfortunately, this is the reality of one of Owen's relatives as mentioned by him in his post. I am not trying to condemn anyone. Christ is our only Judge and if He will decide to apply divine Economia upon certain matters, that is His decision based on His divine wisdom. I am simply quoting what the saint said, and if that does not benefit Owen in any emotional level or any level for that matter, and he chooses not to accept it, then he is doing picking-and-choosing. That is not Orthodox fronima.

Owen Jones

31-08-2007, 08:46 PM

I think the issue in this thread is what is the Unforgivable Sin -- what does Our Lord mean when He says Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I simply don't think that was a reference to His relationship to other religious faiths. That's not the context. Now, we can say, in a sort of vernacular way, that to believe that non-Orthodox Christians will not be saved, cannot be saved, will never be saved, and that to believe such as an unforgivable sin. But that is a kind of personal prolegoumena on the text in question in Mark's Gospel. Also, what if Jesus was speaking in a sort of vernacular way? Just like a parent would of a child who seriously misbehaves -- that's UNFORGIVABLE!!!

Regarding the fullness of truth in Orthodoxy, I think one can reasonably say that the theotes of Christ is the theotes of the Church. But Then one has the problem today of schism within the Church, even within Orthodoxy. So the definition of Orthodoxy is not neatly defined along institutional lines.

It's really a matter of the Church having the right to say when and where the Trinitarian God can and cannot be present. It strikes me, therefore, that to say that someone who is not canonically Orthodox cannot be saved, is pretty much like the Pharisees saying that Jesus must be healing people through some demonic force. The idea that this somehow relativizes the Church, or in some way diminishes the Truth present in the Church, is an example of poor reasoning, based on some confusion regarding the nature of Truth itself. The Pharisaic claim of course is that Jesus is a relativist.

Kornelius

31-08-2007, 09:53 PM

Michael Stickles

31-08-2007, 11:00 PM

Kornelius,

I'm afraid that you've fallen into a non sequitur yourself.

You say that the issue of this thread is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, as if I did not write about one of them according to St. Ignatius.

Um, let's look again at what he said.

Below, I would evoke the blessed words of St. Ignatios Brianchaninov on this theme selected from the saint's letters.
...
Claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ denies Him and, maybe not consciously, falls into the grave sin of blasphemy.

Not "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", but just "sin of blasphemy". Not the same thing. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 3:28-29:

"I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Simple blasphemy is not the topic; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. If all blasphemy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (as you seem to imply), then Christ's words here make no sense.

If you've got another quote from St. Ignatius/Ignatios (or any other of the Fathers) which specifies that the sin in question -- "claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ" -- is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I'd be interested in seeing it. Without that, I can't agree with your thesis.

In Christ,
Mike

Owen Jones

01-09-2007, 02:17 PM

No, at least what I am trying to suggest, is that the Fullness of the truth in the Church is not the same as saying "only" in the Church. In fact, the use of the term fullness implies that the Trinity is present outside the Church. If the Trinity were not present at all outside the Church, then no one would ever convert to the Church, since they would have no capacity within them of recognizing Christ 's fullness in the Church. Now, does presence of God indicate salvation? Well, as far as I can tell, there is no guarantee of salvation IN the Church, at least according to Orthodox theology. So the presence of God, in His fullness in the Church, is no guarantee of salvation in the Church. LIkewise, the presence of God outside the Church suggests at least the possibility of salvation. In my mind, it's like the Pauline theology of marriage. A spouse can be sanctified by a believing spouse. And so people outside the Church can be sanctified by the prayers and sacrifices of the Church. To me, this is a theological perspective that gives the Church more power to save, not less. The two go hand in hand. Truth and Power. One without the other is irrelevant.

In any case, the Biblical passage on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit seems to me to have nothing to do with Christ's relationship with other religions. It is specifically targeted to the Pharisees. The context is that Christ has healed. The Pharisees deny Christ the right to do this, saying further that He is healing through the power of demons. Christ, in his humility, says that it is one thing to deny Him. But to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (which is the power behind the healing) is unforgivable. So unless we interpret this passage in purely literal/historical terms, Christ is condemning a certain attitude, which we term Pharisaical, which is that there is nothing Good outside the control of the religious authorities.

Kornelius

02-09-2007, 02:08 AM

Kornelius,

I'm afraid that you've fallen into a non sequitur yourself.

Um, let's look again at what he said.

Not "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit", but just "sin of blasphemy". Not the same thing. Remember what Jesus said in Mark 3:28-29:

Simple blasphemy is not the topic; blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. If all blasphemy is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (as you seem to imply), then Christ's words here make no sense.

If you've got another quote from St. Ignatius/Ignatios (or any other of the Fathers) which specifies that the sin in question -- "claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ" -- is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I'd be interested in seeing it. Without that, I can't agree with your thesis.

In Christ,
Mike

When I was writing my posts in this thread concerning the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit I was fully aware that St. Ignatius merely said “the sin of blasphemy.” The quote from St. Ignatius regarding the definition of one among blasphemies goes as follows: "Claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ denies Him and, maybe not consciously, falls into the grave sin of blasphemy." It is true that the saint does not say blasphemy against the Holy Spirit per se; however, after having submitted his words under theological scrutiny I had reasons to believe that St. Ignatius’s “sin of blasphemy” in the context of his speech is not any different in nature from the blasphemy against the Spirit. I assumed that everyone shared my belief, i.e., that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not to be confined only within Mark 3:28-29, or that it could be present in one form in the aforementioned citation from St. Ignatius, and that is why I never elaborated any further, but instead I focused on its current relevant implications for us Orthodox Christians, i.e., our constant struggle with religious and spiritual relativism.

Since that is not settled, i.e., that St. Ignatius’s “sin of blasphemy” in the context of his speech is not any different in nature from the blasphemy against the Spirit, then I will step backwards and explain my reasons of belief. This would involve first and foremost an explanation of the nature of the blasphemy against the Spirit. Then, we will proceed and see whether we may also find the common essence of this blasphemy in the quoted text from St. Ignatius.

Where else can one go first for answers other than our beloved Golden-mouth? St. John Chrysostom exegetes in Homily XLI from his text Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew, the same topic as in Mark 3:28-29. He writes: “These things I [Christ] forgive you on your repentance and exact no penalty against you; but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven, no, not to those who repent. And how can this be right? For even this was forgiven upon repentance.* Many at least of those who said these words believed afterwards, and all was forgiven them. What is it than that He saith? That this sin is above all things unpardonable. Why so? Because Himself indeed they knew not, who He might be, but of the Spirit they received ample experience. For the prophets also by the Spirit said whatever they said; and indeed all in the Old Testament had a very High notion of Him.”

In other words, Christ does not condemn them when they blaspheme against Him, for in their spiritual ignorance they see nothing but a man, not a Theanthropos, but they have no excuses when blaspheming against the Spirit, for they had already been introduced to the Spirit through their prophets. This is the essence of the blasphemy according to Chrysostom, and this is where its gravity resides; in the knowledge. The Pharisees were rebuking what they had previous knowledge of, i.e., the Spirit. They were not condemned, however, for what they did not have direct knowledge, i.e., the Person of Christ.

There is an aura of mysticism surrounding this subject to the point of subconsciously attributing the hypostasis of the Spirit higher status than the hypostasis of Christ, due to human logical deduction, since the blasphemy of the former is unforgiven, whereas of the latter is forgiven; hence, the faulty human syllogism. The difficulty to understand this comes from a western tendency to compartmentalize and dissect theology into Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, Christology, Eschatology etc as if they are separate and independent from one another. A true understanding of Orthodox theology is characterized by a Christocentric Pneumatology and a Christocentric Ecclesiology. Please refer to Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierotheos Vlachos who states that, there is no Pneumatology without Christology and no Christology without Pneumatology.

Furthermore, if Pharisees – who did not have direct knowledge of the Person of Christ - were condemned for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, how much more should we Christians be responsible for what we say, since we have knowledge of both the Holy Spirit and Christ? This is why I truly believe, that St. Ignatius’s “sin of blasphemy” in the context of his speech is not at all any different in nature from the blasphemy against the Spirit. He specifically says that this kind of blasphemy "denies Him [Christ]". Denying Christ is nothing but apostasy especially now that we in contrast with the Pharisees know who He is. An apostate is someone who denies his faith in God, and what is faith in God other than the Holy Spirit one received through the sacraments of the Church, the very Church one thinks does not offer salvation exclusively. "Outside the Church there is no salvation." (St. Cyprian of Carthage)

* St. Athanasius the Great points out that God is so merciful that He forgives even the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The reason why Christ says that it will never be forgiven entails the impossibility for repentance on behalf of the person who blasphemes rather than the impossibility of God’s forgiveness. For if one blasphemes against something one had experienced throughout the Old testament, then one commits spiritual suicide.

Kornelius

02-09-2007, 02:20 AM

Owen Jones

02-09-2007, 04:04 PM

Well, we still seem to be on the topic of -- is there salvation outside the Church? Which I still think is quite different than the topic, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Kornelius

02-09-2007, 05:45 PM

Well, we still seem to be on the topic of -- is there salvation outside the Church? Which I still think is quite different than the topic, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Refer to my post#43 for the answer.

Owen Jones

02-09-2007, 05:54 PM

It's a matter of interpretation of the text, and I could easily be wrong. I could easily be totally wrong. I could be wrong about everything. But...there's blasphemy, and then there is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which Christ says is the unforgivable sin. So my only point is to stick to the latter for purposes of this thread, and not define it so widely that it looses its meaning.

Owen Jones

02-09-2007, 06:05 PM

So let me suggest an analogy along the following lines:

A person is in intensive care in secular hospital. A brain tumor is killing him and all the doctors say he is going to die. His protestant family is gathered around and praying for a miracle. The tumor disappears and the man walks out of the hospital. An Orthodox priest is asked about this and says that it was not a miracle, it was some kind of demonic trick to seduce people into following the wrong religion. He states that there cannot be any healing apart from the Holy Eucharist in a canonically Orthodox Church.

Michael Stickles

02-09-2007, 10:14 PM

Dropping back a step here:

As the saint stated: "Claiming the possibility of salvation without belief in Christ denies Him and, maybe not consciously, falls into the grave sin of blasphemy.

From this and the rest you concluded:

Although, St. Ignatios employs primarily Islam to make his point or rather Church's point regarding the blasphemy of finding salvation outside Christianity, it is obvious that any religion that denies Christ as the Son of God, and sole Redeemer and His Orthodox Church as the only path toward Him, falls into the same category with Islam. Accordingly, finding redeeming values in them falls under the grave sin of blasphemy.

Non sequitur.

This is quite a large step from what Ignatios said, adding on pieces that I do not see in his statement. And from here it is only a small step to potentially denying a work of the Spirit in the way Owen described in his illustration.

So, as Owen stated earlier:

Well, we still seem to be on the topic of -- is there salvation outside the Church? Which I still think is quite different than the topic, what is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Unless you are claiming that it is spiritual suicide for a Christian to claim the possibility of salvation outside the boundaries of the Orthodox Church, then I think we have indeed shifted topics.

In Christ,
Mike

M.C. Steenberg

03-09-2007, 12:17 PM

Dear all,

Having just come back to read this thread more carefully, it seemed like it might be helpful to see the context more clearly. The two accounts - in the Gospels of St Mark and St Matthew - which have already been pointed at above, are in context as follows:

From St Mark, chapter 3:
20 Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.”

22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He has Beelzebub,” and, “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.”

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. 27 No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.

28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
And from St Matthew, chapter 12:
22 Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. 23 And all the multitudes were amazed and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.”

25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Owen's insistence, in several posts above, that the specific passage on the 'unpardonable sin' (i.e. Mark 3.28-30 and Matthew 12.31-32) must be read in the context of Christ's response to the Pharisees, is clear. The text in St Mark's Gospel makes this emphatic by explicitly drawing the connection at the end of verse 30 (though Mark, unlike Matthew, calls them the 'scribes' rather than the Pharisees): Christ speaks of the unforgivable sin 'because they ['the scribes', v. 22] said, “He has an unclean spirit.”' I think Owen is quite right, in that the tendency to read the ending verses of these accounts as a kind of separate dogmatic story, defining a unique category of sin apart from the context of the encounter, distorts what is being said.

All the Gospel writers who recount the event (see also Luke 11.14-23) set it in the context of Christ having been rebuked - in Matthew and Luke on account of a miracle. The Pharisees rebuke Christ, and the miracles he works, as the handicraft of the devil. Their charge is not that he does not heal, not that he is not miraculous, but that the healing he offers is demonic. 'He does not cast out demons except by the demons, and by the ruler of the demons'. Christ then responds with his words on a 'house divided against itself', essentially a picture in words to demonstrate that a group casting out its own members is bound for collapse. If demons are cast out by other demons, their own race is lost. One cannot be both with and against - and so Christ appoints the words directly to himself: just as he cannot be both against yet with the demons (which is what the Pharisees / scribes have asserted), so one cannot be with yet against him. And this leads explicitly into his comment on an unforgiven sin: 'Therefore I say to you....'

The question is, what precisely is the nature of his comments on this particular sin against the Spirit, set in this context of the rebuke of the pharisees, and not as some stand-alone dogmatics?

St Bede, in his commentary on St Mark's Gospel, writes:
'We do not deny that even he , if he be willing to do penance, can be forgiven by him who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But, believing the judge and grantor of pardon, who said that he would always accept repentance and also said that this blasphemy would not be forgiven, we believe that this blasphemer, because of his wickedness, as he never obtains remission so neither does he bring forth worthy fruits of penance.'
Bede takes it as a given that, in point of fact, God will forgive all, without exception. There is nothing that is unforgivable as a category - i.e. a type of sin that God either cannot or will not pardon. But it is possible for a sin to remain unforgiven, and St Bede seems to connect this to the conduct not of God as redeemer, or to a certain type of transgression as somehow magically 'too far', but to transgression in which the person is drawn away from repentance and penance. He seems to identify this blasphemy with one in which the person sins in a manner that denies God the right to forgive - creating a hardness in the person's heart.

This is the same argument put forward by St Ambrose. Concerning the nature of the encounter, he writes:
'We see that the words are expressly used of those who said that the Lord Jesus was casting out devils by Beelzebub. The Lord replied that the heritage of Satan would be in those who compared the Savior of all to Satan and attributed the grace of Christ to the kingdom of Satan. And that we might know that He spoke of this blasphemy, He added: Brood of vipers, how can you speak good things, when you are evil? He denies, therefore, that those who speak thus shall have pardon. [...] The Lord's reply, then, concerns the sin of the Pharisees; and He refuses them the grace of His power, which consists in the remission of sin, because they asserted that His heavenly power rested on the help of the devils' ([I]On repentance, 2.4).
It is worth recalling that Ambrose is writing in the midst of, and against, the Novatian schism, which included groups enumerating whole hosts of sins that met the category of 'unforgivable', and drew on these Gospel passages as kinds of templates. St Ambrose is insistent that any use of the passage which tries to extrapolate the encounter to a kind of category of sin that God cannot / will not forgive, is to abuse the Gospel, which speaks explicitly of a group and an encounter. 'The Lord's reply, then, concerns the sin of the Pharisees'

This reading - that the explicit sin of the Pharisees is a denial of the true power of Christ's healing and redemption, denying its grounding in the work of the Holy Spirit and assigning it instead to the work of the demons - is commonplace in the writings of the fathers, and can be found in Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Basil, Athanasius, etc. And the question of this sin as 'unforgiven' is generally responded to in the same manner: it is not a sin that as a category is beyond God's power or willingness to forgive, but one which prevents the receipt of forgiveness precisely because it closes one off to the reality of redemption. If forgiveness comes in the working of the Spirit through Christ for the human race, the denial of the Spirit as actor denies that forgiveness. Other sins may prompt one to repent and seek the grace of the Spirit through contrition; but the denial of the Spirit cannot lead to the desire for the Spirit. God may still pardon, but man remains unforgiven, turning his back on this redemption.

So, in all this, I agree in part with what Owen has written. I am not sure, however, that I agree with his assertions (e.g. here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=49420&postcount=11) and here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=49423&postcount=13)) that the nature of the 'wrong' in the encounter with the Pharisees is that of trying to control miraculous power, etc. This may indeed have been part of the motivation behind their rebuff; but Christ's words in response seem aimed more at the nature of the denial, rather than its motivations. What allows this sin, above all others, to remain unforgiven is not that it is driven by a lust to control the power of God, but by that lust's denial of the true power of God in the Spirit. This seems to me to be far more the common vision of the fathers.

Of course, it is not an absolutely universal reading. Augustine of Hippo thought a great deal on the question (see his sermon 74, a commentary on this passage in St Matthew's Gospel), in which he does indeed view it as a sin that is unforgivable. Yet even here, he does connect this notion to the idea of a 'permanent non-repentance'.

Andreas Moran

03-09-2007, 12:41 PM

I wonder if, following Matthew's exposition of this point, this applies to Judas? I have seen it suggested that if a person is worried about having committed the unpardonable sin, that is proof they have not committed it. Rather different is the point made by both St Theophan the Recluse and St Ignatii Brianchaninov that one may go 'a sin too far', and (presumably by some hardness of heart) put oneself beyond redemption.

Nina

06-11-2008, 03:28 PM

Kornelius just told me that he read in a book from Father Seraphim Rose that the souls of those who are unbaptized in the Orthodox Church and have departed will meet Christ and He will preach to them the Gospel. Now I feel like crying. And thank you to Kornelius who shared this with us. He does not have time right now to copy the passage here, but when he is more free he will post it - he said, or if there is someone out there that knows it please post it (I am so impatient to read it because we have so many friends here with relatives in such case). We talked about it, marveled, and both were reminded once again not to judge, and both were amazed at God's endless mercy, and also both were so delighted that this will be an answer to the Orthodox who have non-Orthodox relatives that departed. I am so happy but also so moved! Who is greater than our God?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ana C.

24-07-2010, 07:05 AM

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum... I'm not Orthodox, I'm Eastern Catholic, but I was wondering about the Eastern understanding of the unforgiveable sin.

I'm really scared that I committed the same sin as the Pharisees in Matthew 12. I want to talk to my priest about this but I haven't been able to meet with him yet, for transportation reasons. A while ago, I felt really tempted to think that all the ways that God has worked in my life, was not actually God, but that it all was a deception from the devil. At first I rejected this idea, but after a while I got so confused, and the feeling got so strong/certain that for a time I accepted it. The problem is that at the same time, I could see how the ways that God has worked in my life, are clearly good. For example, how He brought me to faith, showed me His mercy, healed me of something I was going through (emotionally), the ways I experienced Him in the Eucharist, etc... I felt that God was telling me that all these things were delusions from the enemy, and I was so afraid to say no to God, that I accepted that suggestion.... later on, I felt such an absense of God; I felt so far from Him... and I always thought, maybe that suggestion wasnt from God after all. After some time, I came back to my faith, and repented of having doubted Him.

The problem is that I still feel very far from God, and I'm constantly afraid of having done the unforgiveable sin. I really don't see how my sin is different from what the Pharisees did... they thought something from God is from the devil, and so did I :( I did this under a lot of pressure, out of fear, believing that it was God who was telling me this, etc... not out of any malice (I hope..). But still.. I didn't just disbelieve my relationship with God, I actually thought it was demonic!! I looked up the Greek translation of Matthew 12, and apparently it refers not to the Holy Spirit as a Person, but to His activity... I called His actions demonic... Im constantly afraid of going to hell, and this has been going on for a couple of weeks.

I'm planning to speak with my priest.. but I was wondering, can someone please help me understand if I've done the unforgiveable sin or not? I'm constantly struggling with this and I feel so much guilt and pain inside. I'm really sorry for what I have done. But I'm so afraid that God won't forgive me.. I'm even afraid of going to Confession, because what if He wont forgive me.

I'm sorry this is so long.. I would really appreciate any advice, especially any explanations of the unforgiveable sin.

Thank you :) God bless

Father David Moser

24-07-2010, 07:23 AM

Ana C.

24-07-2010, 07:37 AM

Ana,

I have moved your post into this thread which already addresses the "unforgivable sin" in great detail. I would encourage you to read through the whole thread. Let me simply add the words of St Ephraim the Syrian who teaches us that the the only unforgivable sin is the sin for which we have not repented.

Fr David Moser

Hello Father, thank you :) if I am understanding correctly, does this mean that if a person truly did this sin, in the way the Christ describes in Matthew 12, they wouldn't repent? And if they do repent, that means it's still a sin but forgiveable?

thanks again!

Ana

Father David Moser

24-07-2010, 06:16 PM

Its not that a person can't repent of any particular sin, but rather that he chooses not to do so. Anything else would be a denial of our free will. We can always repent, no matter what, but if we choose not to repent, then that is the sin which cannot be forgiven.

Fr David Moser

Ana C.

24-07-2010, 06:50 PM

Paul Cowan

24-07-2010, 08:06 PM

Matthew 15:17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, 19 and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.”’
20 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.

Nemanja

09-09-2010, 06:36 PM

Hello to everyone,

this is my first post on this forum. I am an Orthodox Christian from the Serb Church, living in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I am a person who, sometimes, explores things in too much detail. Therefore, I have certain questions that I have been struggling with for a long time and can't find the answer anywhere. I have come to truly respect this forum, and will try to find the answers to some of my questions here.

Now, to the point. When I read the Gospels of Mathew and of Mark, when the Lord condemns the Pharisees for this blasphemy, I notice that the Lord insists that it is completely obvious that casting out a demon can't be a deed of another demon, but only a work of the Holy Spirit. To quote the Gospel:

Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; 26 and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Be-el'zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

However, in the Orthodox Tradition, we know that there are many people: soothsayers, sorcerers, pagan shamans and witches, and even some "christian" heretical groups who claim to "cast out" the devil. Indeed, some of their deeds look like something very authentic, but still - we believe that those works are of devil and not of the Lord. So, just the fact that someone does something which looks like casting out an evil spirit is not a proof that it is a work of the Holy Spirit, but Lord Christ said (at least the way I see it) that it was self-evident that it was a work of the Holy Spirit.

On this site (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frseraphim_charismatics.aspx) there is a great article "Charismatic Revival As a Sign of the Times" by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose of Platina. Let me quote two key points for the issue I have here:

St. John Cassian, the great 5th-century Orthodox father of the West, who wrote with great discernment on the working of the Holy Spirit in his Conference on "Divine Gifts," notes that "sometimes the demons [work miracles] in order to lift into pride the man who believes himself to possess the miraculous gift, and so prepare him for a more miraculous fall. They pretend that they are being burnt up and driven out from the bodies where they were dwelling through the holiness of people whom truly they know to be unholy... In the Gospel we read: There shall arise false Christs and false prophets" [12].

The widespread practice of "exorcism" in "charismatic" circles offers no guarantee whatever that evil spirits are actually being driven out; exorcisms are also very common (and seemingly successful) among primitive shamans,14 who also recognize that there are different kinds of spirits - which are all, however, equally demons, whether they seem to flee when exorcised or come when invoked to give shamanistic powers.

There is a famous archimandrite in the Serbian Church, Fr. Joil. I remember listening to him once, when he warned people of the big sin of consulting a soothsayer for help. Quoting from remembrance:

She delivers you from the burden of one demon, but brings ten others upon you!

And, obviously, this is true. But doesn't it contradict the Lord's words where He claimed that the work of casting out a devil is obviously a work of the Holy Spirit?

Father David, I have noticed that you monitor this thread, can you help me with this? This issue has been bothering me for a long time...

Kosta

10-09-2010, 06:14 AM

Jesus Christ was driving out demons within the framework of judaism. Thats why the Lord said if he casts out by belzebul , the same can be said of the prophets and other respected jewish healers. Anotherwords the jews did have the same understanding as FR. Seraphim Rose and Fr Joil, that a possibility exists that demons are behind certain excorcisms for the purpose of greater destruction. The jews accusations against Christ were not based on anything unusual or heretical that he did nor did they deny or disbelieve the healings.

Margaret S.

10-09-2010, 10:47 AM

I don't think it is 'casting out' when what happens is that the devil removes one of his own for his own ends. The soothsayer isn't casting anything out, she's merely being used by the devil to rearrange things.

Regards,
Margaret
in Edinburgh

Ronnie Shakespeare

11-10-2010, 05:58 AM

I was talking to a Jehovah witness about miracles and healings that happen in our time: Also about Christians that cast out
demon evil spirits in the name of Jesus; His Reply was that is satan casting out satan;
He also went on to say that anybody healed today by a miracle, This is done by the power of Satan. Then he was useing scriptures to support how the devil can use his power to do Signs and miracles. Also he was useing scripture to say that all these signs have passed away. Has he blasphemd againts the holy spirit??

Paul Cowan

11-10-2010, 06:17 AM

Not necessarily. He is just a poor lost soul who needs prayer.

Ronnie Shakespeare

12-10-2010, 01:56 PM

Not necessarily. He is just a poor lost soul who needs prayer.

I would agree with you there; I have been to a pentecostal church where they had the Toronto blessing at first i thought it was the holy spirit especially when it was manifesting on me. It is a very powerfull experiance.
Then i started thinking this is the powerfull delussion that i read about in Scripture. when i left that church i thought maybe i am blasphemeing the holy spirit.

What happens in the Orthodox church as regards signs and manifestations of the holy spirit?

Herman Blaydoe

12-10-2010, 03:32 PM

The Holy Spirit "manifests" every Divine Liturgy and in every sacrament of the Church. The lives of the saints are replete with examples of the Holy Spirit in action. Miracles happen all the time, like the descent of the holy fire in Jerusalem every year, oil-streaming icons, miraculous healings, how much manifestation does one need?

Herman the manifest Pooh

Ronnie Shakespeare

26-10-2010, 03:22 AM

When I was at this penticostal church that had the Toronto blessing. With Benny Hinn Attending at times. i had a group of people laying hands on me and praying in tongues. One was praying so i could understand. He was asking God to fill me with the holy spirit. I must Admit something rushed through me which caused me to fall to the ground. It caused me to to cry and laugh at the same time. It was like a type of crying for Joy. It seemed at that moment God revealed him himself to me. But i did not speak in tongues at the time but a few weeks later i had a Go copying other people. Other times i had experiances hot and cold. Tingling type electricity going up my arms. People standing next to me said they could feel the same thing. Another time my body was really shakeing alot.
Other people had other manifistations like Jumping up and down on the spot. spiritual dancing and being drunk in the spirit.
Other people were wriggling round on the Floor as others where nameing and casting out evil spirits in the name of Jesus.
I did watch the church grow rapidly from 300 to 800 members in a year. There were people claiming all sorts of healings even down to there teeth. There was never any medical evidence to prove things. I did bring a friend of mine John to the church on a few Occasions who was wheelchair bound with multible sclerosis. But he was not healed.
I did not like it when on one occasion the asked Him Do you believe God will Heal you. Because he had doubts and said no. Some people said to him you are going to hell because you don't believe. Later in another meeting a woman claimed she was healed from multible sclerosis.

The Style of preaching behind there message was health and prosperity. The even preach Jesus was very rich financialy
millionaire level.
Do christians in the Orthodox church get baptised and filled in the holy spirit and speak in tongues? If so what is the manifistations.
Also do Orthodox christians cast out evil spirits in the name of Jesus? If so what are the manifistations?

Herman Blaydoe

26-10-2010, 03:55 AM

How else would you cast out evil spirits? We perform exorcisms as part of the baptismal rite. Exorcist has been a recognized ministry within the Church. An Orthodox position on "tongues" can be found here: Speaking in Tongues: an Orthodox Perspective (http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112)

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-10-2010, 05:24 PM

There are many things even more powerful than what is described above. I knew someone who participated in a weekend 'spirit session' where they were taught various techniques for going into their deeper subconsciousness. This was presented as discovering some sort of deeper truth. But the result for this person was frightening- something close to a nervous breakdown. It seemd then that the only 'success' came from being totally convinced of the truth of what was going on. Nothing else.

Much then is at work in such 'spiritual sessions' such as the Toronto blessing and which are very popular nowadays. Notice first of all how no faith of an Orthodox nature is called for. On the contrary, faith in what is occurring is what is demanded. So this should strike us as risky business at best and on several obvious points.

This gets to the second point of how so much of what occurs at such sessions depends on a heightened psychological state, along the lines of crowd psychology. Much is mysterious about this; and of why/how it unlocks something the conscious person otherwise wouldn't pursue otherwise. (maybe Fr David can suggest what's going on here since he has training I think in the area of human psychology). But the power of willing acceptance is obviously of great importance in the whole process which is brought on by sharing in crowd energy. Here I have heard, actual techniques are known and pursued by those who manage such sessions: that for it to work, the people have to be worked & warmed up to an intense emotional state for a period of time. From this point on the people are open to all sorts of states that are beyond normal experience. But which are then mistaken for visitations of the Holy Spirit or finding the depths of one's consciousness.

Whichever it is though, this certainly is not the experience of the Church, where transformation of the inner man is what is sought, by means of selfless and ascetic dying to oneself in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father David Moser

26-10-2010, 08:01 PM

Do christians in the Orthodox church get baptised and filled in the holy spirit and speak in tongues? If so what is the manifistations.

This probably isn't the answer to your question that you were looking for, however, all Orthodox Christians receive the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Chrismation (which immediately follows their baptism).

As for "manifestations": The gifts of the Holy Spirit can all be found in the Orthodox Church, however, we follow the injunction of the Holy Apostle Paul that all things be done decently and in order. Remember that the devil is a liar and the father of lies and that he goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. As from the first, the devil's chief weapon and strategy is deceit and indeed does not our Lord warn us that in the last days that deception will be so powerful that even the elect might be deceived. We also know that the devil appears in the guise of an "angel of light". For all these reasons, the Church has always approached "manifestations" carefully. The spirit bearing fathers instruct us that when a "manifestation" appears - be it a dream, a vision, a miracle, whatever - that we do not respond to it but submit that experience to the elders of the Church (that is the bishop). Therefore when those miracles appear, if they are from God then the Church embraces them, but if they are deceptions, meant to lead us astray, we are preserved from following them.

The public, high visibility, mass phenomena ranging everywhere from "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" to the "Toronto blessing" have no reference, there is no evaluation. They are based entirely on one's personal feeling. This is the hallmark of demonic deception for although they have the patina of spirituality - the source of that spirituality is hidden. I can't and won't say that everyone who has had a "charismatic" experience outside the Church is deceived (just as I can't and won't say just because a person is Orthodox the can't be deceived) but I will say that such experiences are more likely than not to lead one into enslavement to the passions.

Fr David Moser