1. Though I agree with your position on election, I think you put words in the mouth of your first caller. He was at a disadvantage, being that he didn’t speak English well. You didn’t listen to his point, that might have been (who knows he was cut off and talked over) that the Pharisees and Saducees strudied many years but were still wrong.

    As far as women in leadership…it is very difficult for a woman to be the husband of one wife. Well…maybe not these days but then she would be disqualified for other reasons.

    Why does the person that “Blasphemes the Holy Spirit” have to “KNOWINGLY”, as you put it, attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil. I do not see that the Pharisees “KNOWINGLY” did this. Maybe you can shed some light on this idea.

    I remamber hearing John MacArthur say, on a radio show about 20 years ago tongues were of the devil. There was a very strong grieving in my spirit and I said to my wife “He just blasphemed the Holy Spirit! He can’t be forgiven for that.”


  2. Gregory…wow. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anything as pompous and arrogant as that. Amazing.
    I know Calvinists who cringe at guys like that though, so I don’t think all Reformed folks are of this kind of ill spirit. Paul Washer or Sproul Sr. would NEVER talk like that…

    If Whitefield and Wesley could be best friends and God sent earth shaking revival through both of them, then we can surely get along just fine….

  3. This is to Bo – for what other reasons would women be disqualified from being pastors?

    “Pastor” in the truest sense of the word is a calling and equipping from Messiah, and is not an office as we see in today’s churches. Eph. 4:11

    The purpose of all gifts and callings are to equip the saints regardless of gender.


  4. Dee,

    I was alluding to homosexuality disqualifying a woman in my post. I was referring to Paul’s teaching on the subject of who to place in “official” positions of authority in the body of Messiah.(1 Tim. 3 & Tit. 1) Please know that as far as sensitivity to YHWH and compassion and muti-tasking and so many other areas women are more qualified to “pastor.” But YHWH asks men to step up to the plate and be on the front line. Who knows, maybe this is one way His strength is made perfect in our weakness.

    There certainly have been many women that have been used mightily by YHWH. But I am guessing that in many cases of leadership it was because the men were being slackers or spiritual wimps.

    No offense or male chauvinism intended. And yes, YHWH gifts us all to minister one to another. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servants of all. My true guess is there will be many more women than men that receive this reward.

    Sorry for any misunderstanding.


  5. Should a position that states that God hates (most) people and has only atoned for the sins of a select group be considered as “within the family?” Would the Apostle John agree with this assessment in light of 2 John 9? What about the Christological implications of 1 John 2:2?

    Should we purposefully encourage Calvinists to repent of false doctrine and believe the simple Gospel message (all means all, whosoever means whosoever, whole world means whole world) for the purpose of avoiding judgment, or should we minimize our differences, just aim to get along and work together when possible?

    If my position is considered “within the family” what is my motivation to repent? Are there no potential heretical consequences for believing and communicating Calvinism?

    I’m okay, you’re okay, que sera sera.

  6. Bo,

    I’ll ignore your criticism of my interaction with the first caller (he spoke English fine, but with an accent), but to be clear, you believe John MacArthur is guilty of the unpardonable sin? Damned to hell?

    If so, your positions are more dangerous than I even realized up to now. If you’re not saying that, please do make yourself more clear, since what you wrote is quite extreme.

  7. Dr Brown,

    In my understanding, the Calvinist believes that Jesus hates most people (Romans 9), has predestined them for hell, and hasn’t atoned for their sins.

    This, among other Calvinist positions, causes me to question their belonging in the family of God; especially in light of scriptures such as 2 John vs.9.

    If God loves all, has died for all, and offers repentance to all, doesn’t the Calvinist have problematic Christology?

  8. Additionally, you are not a Calvinist. In your opinion, are there any spiritual ramifications for people that “do” adhere to this doctrine? Have they at least opened the door for curses to operate in their life?

  9. Greg,

    I don’t believe most Calvinists would agree with your formulation of things and, since they hold to all the fundamentals required for salvation — in terms of who Jesus is and does and what our response to Him must be — I see your exclusionary view as unscriptural, not to mention consigning men like Edwards, Whitefield, Spurgeon, John Bunyan, and many other saintly leaders to hell.

  10. Dr. Brown,

    Thanks for responding. I’m sure you’re right, most Calvinists would not agree with my formulation of things – but what’s new? How many times have you heard “You’re just not understanding my position?”

    (Calvin) Before the foundation of the world, God loves those he’s chosen (Jacob) and hates those he’s either “passed-over” or predestined for damnation (Esau).

    How can you truly say that the Calvinist holds to the fundamentals required for what Jesus “does” if they deny the universality of His atonement?

    If the Calvinist rejects the genuine work of Christ with respect to His “universal” atonement then my concern is not that far-fetched in light of John’s warning about neglecting proper Christology.

    I don’t particularly like the implication that men such as Spurgeon, Edwards, or any other Calvinist has been consigned to hell either. Surely, this doesn’t seem right to me.

    However, I am certain that there are consequences for doctrinal error – particularly when you’re considering issues such as the atonement and the character of God.


  11. Well, let’s say if they or someone else does it knowingly, they have blasphemed the Holy Spirit anyway. I personally think it is quite hard to say in Yeshua’s presence (!) that He has His authority from the devil. His mere presence should have been enough to know that this was NOT AT ALL the case.

    But in this point I agree with Bo Dr. Brown, I would appreciate it also if you would hear us out more often before responding. No offense intended.

  12. Erika,

    Thank you for your support, but it makes me feel a bit strange sometimes.

    Just so you know, I like Dr. Brown. I think he is doing some good things in the kingdom. I really do think he is right on the vast majority of his teaching. Not that I am the one to determine what is correct, but we are in agreement in most areas.

    You really do not need to speak for me. I appreciate the things that you post, but I try to let them stand as your thoughts. I honestly would rather hear about it when you think I am wrong. This causes me to search my heart and the scriptures. This is what I am doing when I challenge Dr. Brown…I hope.

    Please know that I mean no rebuke by this. Keep the faith. Fight the good fight. Keep posting.

    We wrestle not against flesh and blood.


  13. Hey Bo, I actually did not mean to speak for you in general, but for the cause that we sometimes seem to have in common. No, I’m not offended Bo – keep also posting – but it’s good to know that I’m not alone. Shalom!

  14. So Bo, I hope that I have expressed myself in the first paragraph of my post at 11:32 am why I think you are wrong – or didn’t I 😉

  15. Oh I think he meant that you said he had interrupted and not heard out the first caller (him being rude). Maybe I should now also listen to that show – but he wouln’t be doing that for the first time.

    And by the way – if I would not appreciate Dr. Brown I would not post here at all – and since I’m still posting I hope he sees our comments for what they are meant to be – constructive, not destructive hopefully.

  16. No Bo, I just was commenting at 11:32 am regarding your previous comment at 8:12 pm yesterday I cite:
    “I do not see that the Pharisees “KNOWINGLY” did this.”

  17. Erika,

    It looks like you were right. Guess I’ll try again without the criticism of how the show went. The part I was referring to is from the 9:30 through 10:40 section of the show.

  18. Dr. Brown,

    Sorry about whatever was a personal attack.

    You didn’t answer my question.

    Why does the person that “Blasphemes the Holy Spirit” have to “KNOWINGLY”, as you put it, attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil? I do not see that the Pharisees “KNOWINGLY” did this. Maybe you can shed some light on this idea.

    I will answer your question after you answer mine.


  19. Oh, that was the interaction part – well, concerning the question ”
    “I do not see that the Pharisees “KNOWINGLY” did this.” – I think I have made myself clear already.

    Shalom everybody,


  20. Erika,

    Don’t take up an offence. Stay objective. I am not looking for anyone to be on my side. I just wanted to know what I did wrong.


  21. Bo, I thought that the section you mentioned referred to your question

    “I do not see that the Pharisees “KNOWINGLY” did this.”

    Lots of misunderstandings today… I guess the devil has an issue with the “Line of Fire”.

    Anyway, hope that both of you, Bo and Dr. Brown have still a blessed week… Shalom!

  22. Bo,

    As I said, you need to step higher, and hopefully that will be self-evident to you.

    As to your question, elsewhere in the Gospels, Yeshua refers to the Pharisees claim to “see” — therefore their guilt is greater and their guilt remains. And since Saul/Paul (among others) received mercy because he acted ignorantly and in unbelief, it is clear that willful, high-handed sin (as in Numbers 15:30-31) is the greater issue — and the one that would logically apply in Mark 3. Is it 100% clear? No, but the principle of mercy extended for ignorance is perfectly clear, hence the logical, scriptural deduction re: the guilt of the Pharisees.

  23. Erika,

    Constructive comments are always welcome, and I take no personal offense when, on occasion, people cross the line here. But since we seek to have a certain decorum here, since I would not want someone to make a personal judgment against you here and call you “rude” (for example), we don’t let others to do that either (whether to me or someone else).

    We get into lots of heated subjects here, and the goal is to remain civil and respectful, even when strongly disagreeing.

    And if someone has a personal issue, they can write to me personally.

  24. Well Dr. Brown, I’d say that I’m not really rude, but rather “Rood” you know. Hence I’m still seeking buddies, but it seems that Bo found me a bit too intrusive. But as Bo said, he does not have an personal issue with you (sorry Bo).

  25. Good point about willful “High handed sin.” But if someone says they see, does that men that they really do? Could they be deceived and only think they see and still be responsible because of their pride and not because they knew the works were of God?

  26. Bo,

    I answered your question, please reply to mine. Thanks!

    Big Tex,

    Yes, great question, and ultimately, only God knows the heart and can determine where the line has been crossed. I do know believers who emphatically claimed that the works of the Holy Spirit were of the devil until they dramatically encountered the Holy Spirit! God’s mercy is great.

  27. Dr. Brown,

    Thanks for explaining yourself. I basically agree with your thoughts on willful sin vs. ignorant sin. I had not applied this concept to this situation before. I am sure it has some merit.

    To be clear. I did not and would not judge MacArthur, or anyone else for that matter, as damned to hell.

    Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

    He did speak a word, at least in general terms, against the Holy Spirit. I do think teachers need to be very, very careful.

    James 3
    1 My brethren, be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
    2 For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body.

    The Pharisees were teachers. Teachers generally think (say) they see or they would not be teaching. They may or may not be proud about it.

    Speaking against the Holy Spirit carries consequences in this life and the world to come. It would seem that one that speaks a word against the Holy Spirit loses something that YHWH would have otherwise bestowed upon them here and hereafter. Does that mean automatic etenal damnation for such sin? Can one never repent of it? Only YHWH can judge that. As you said, “Is it 100% clear? No…”

    James 3
    5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!
    6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

    As far as being damned to hell, you said, “Only God …. can determine where the line has been crossed.” So I do not judge anyone to being damned either.

    Speaking against the Holy Spirit…now that’s dangerous.

    What about my other question. “Do you think MacArthur says he sees?” Thanks!


    Dangerous Bo 🙂

  28. Erika,

    As far as being in Y’shua’s presence….He had no form or comliness that we should desire Him. I kind of think that He seemed regular or less than regular. I think you had to accept Him by faith even then.

    For sure He spoke with authority as if He was speaking for YHWH but we see many people do that today. Some we write off. Some we are impressed with.

    So I do not think that it would be any harder to speak against Him or the Spirit while in His incarnate presence. But as for the way John saw Him in Revelation, that’s a different story.


  29. That is right Bo, but then we also have these verses in

    Matthew 4:13-16

    “Leaving Nazareth, he came and lived in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Naphtali, 4:14 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying,

    4:15 “The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
    toward the sea, beyond the Jordan,
    Galilee of the Gentiles,
    4:16 the people who sat in darkness SAW A GREAT LIGHT,
    to those who sat in the region and shadow of death,
    to them light has dawned.”

    And in Matthew 7:28-29

    ” It happened, when Yeshua had finished saying these things, that the multitudes were astonished at his teaching, 7:29 for he taught them with authority, and not like the scribes.”

    Yeshua certainly did not come like He was expected to come.

    I think the verse that you quoted from Isaiah 53 rather pertains to His death on the cross when He had left His last dignity behind and became sin itself in order to free us from it.

  30. I am thinking that this passage is not speaking of the creucifixion until the middle of verse 3 at the earliest, and maybe not until verse 5.

    Isaiah 53
    1 ¶ Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
    2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
    3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
    4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
    5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.


  31. Dr. Brown,

    I’ve been thinking, maybe too hard. If speaking against the Holy Spirit is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, it would be sin no matter what. It may or may not be in ignorance, but I am wondering who would do such a thing on purpose (knowing that they were doing so). Even if they didn’t know the declaration of Messiah about it not being forgiven, there doesn’t seem to be a good motive. Maybe I am naive, but it seems that it would only be done by someone that was blinded by pride or deceived by false teaching, but not knowingly.

    Can you think of a motive? Have you seen such a case?


    Dangerous Bo

  32. “Such a case.” Measured how, in a moment’s misinterpretation of Acts of the Spirit, or over a believer’s lifetime, where much, so related, gains new perspective? What was Yeshua saying when He said of certain ones, because you have said you see, you are blind?

    Did not this mean they were upholding their position more even than any supposed insight or conveyance of truth or law? What did he say in the seven woes about these folks?

  33. To be more precise, I think actually that it was possible to see both in Yeshua during His life on earth: The great light and the source of His authority as well as Him being the suffering servant. And usually people see in others what they have in their own hearts.

    So it was easy for superficial people to mistake Him, and He also was annoying the religious establishment because He was teaching that it was allowed to disregard the oral law (“tradition of the elders”).

    But for sincere people it was possible to see in Him the Light and Salvation of the world.

    So people had to be sincere in order to “get Him”.

    The next time He comes EVERYONE will “get Him” one or the other way – with joy and repentance OR with gnashing of teeth.

  34. Bo, if I may address you again concerning your latest post, I think this is the way how it goes:

    People are on the wrong path and get reminded of this by the Holy Spirit. Their further way will depend on their response to this speaking of the Holy Spirit.

    If the person resists and continues his walk on the wrong path, he does it willfully, but in the process also gets blinded by his own actions. His way of thinking will get distorted, and further wrong desicions may go along with being blinded as well.

    So I think that there is always a willful as well as a being blinded part to it.

    Dr. Brown – thank you for this show and may you be blessed!

Comments are closed.