The Issues

The Issues Involved

Among the many strange, and in some cases, new doctrines which have appeared on the horizon of Seventh-day Adventism during its short history, is a doctrine which has been referred to as "the character of God" message by those who embrace it. Most others know it better as the doctrine which teaches that God does not kill. Those who have accepted it declare that this message is the end-time message and is the ultimate understanding of God's character. Others see it as a dangerous doctrine which undermines the very basis of Christian faith, the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

Specifically, this teaching says that God Himself never ever, under any circumstances, personally takes or removes the life of any creature. It says He may allow others to do it, He may accept the blame for it, but He Himself never is the agent or the cause which removes life. What this means is that every place in the Bible where it says that God killed or destroyed or took a life, is not to be believed the way it reads, but must be reinterpreted to fit this doctrine. So then we would have to accept that God never caused the great flood in Noah's day, never destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, never slew Korah, Dathan and Abiram, never destroyed Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea, etc. etc.

The reasoning behind this belief is that God cannot break His own laws. The Sixth Commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” These laws are not simply a set of rules, but are actually a revelation of God's character; a description of what God is really like. Therefore, the reasoning goes, God cannot deny His own character. Since, “Thou shalt not kill,” describes what He is like and reveals His nature, then we must accept that it is contrary to God's character and nature to kill. Thus, we end up with the doctrine, “God Does Not Kill.”

HOW SHALL WE UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE?

This doctrine compels us to focus on the issue of whether or not the Bible is the dependable word of God. It has been made out to be an issue concerning the character of God, but before we get anywhere near that issue, there is another issue to be settled first and it is the issue of whether or not the Bible is the word of God.

Who inspired those men who made all those statements in the Bible about God killing, or destroying? Did holy men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Ghost? (2 Pet. 1:21). Did the holy ghost inspire these men to make statements which were not true? This is the dilemma we end up in when we deny the truth that God does kill. We must either deny this doctrine or we must deny the Scriptures!

In order to accept this teaching, we must, like the Trinitarian and the Sunday worshipper now declare, “this doctrine is not explicitly taught in the Bible (in fact the very opposite is explicitly taught!) but we believe it anyway.” But if our concept of God requires us to twist or disbelieve the plainest statements of God's own word, then our concept of God is wrong!! Let us immediately abandon the false concept for there is no safety in an idol. If our concept of God is based on error, where are we any better off than the Trinitarian? God gave us His word for our learning. Let us then learn as we read. It is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Tim. 3:16) Let us then learn doctrine from it, be reproved and instructed by it. Let our ideas of God be based on it, but God forbid that we should come to the place where we are wiser that the Scriptures. Where, “thus saith my opinion,” is of more weight than “thus saith the word of God.”

What do we do with all the clear, unmistakable passages which say that God not only killed, but ordered the killing of people? Here is one striking example:

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Sam 15:2,3)

Here we have plain unmistakable statements. Samuel says to Saul, “Thus saith the Lord.” Who was it that gave Samuel that message? Was it God? Was it the devil? Who spoke the words to Samuel which he claimed was coming from God? I have asked this question of some of my friends who believe this doctrine. I have asked it over and over but I have been unable to get an answer. They have talked about principles and character, but I cannot get a plain simple, “God said it,” or, “Satan said it.” You see, if God said it, then we have the problem of a God who cannot kill, who will not kill Himself, but who does order His servants to kill. A God who asks others to do what He Himself will not do. But if Satan gave this command to Samuel, then what do we have? We have a prophet who says, “Thus saith the Lord,” when it is really, “thus saith Satan.” This would make Samuel a prophet of Satan rather than a prophet of God.

Let us consider also the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. Somebody performed a miracle and opened up the sea for the children of Israel. This happened when Moses stretched out his rod over the waters. Who was it that opened the sea, held back the waters and delivered Israel? Was it God, or was it Satan? A little later, Moses stretched out his rod again and the waters came sweeping in and destroyed the armies of Pharaoh. Who was it that now released the waters? Was it God or was it Satan? The same person who held back the waters is the same one who released them. If Satan was the one who released the waters, destroying the armies of Pharaoh, then it must have been he who delivered the Israelites and took them through the Red Sea by holding back the waters. But if God was the one who parted the waters and held them in place, then it must have been he who released them, thus wiping out Pharaoh's army. One person performed both actions. We cannot have it both ways.

How do we understand these, and a hundred other similar Scriptures? There is not a single verse in Scripture which says, “God does not kill.” There are on the other hand, dozens of verses which say that God not only killed people, but also commanded people to kill other people. Do not these verses carry any weight with us? Having formulated our ideal of what love should be and what mercy means, shall we come to the Bible with our minds already made up and make strenuous efforts to bend the Scriptures to fit this doctrine? Note carefully that the doctrine is not taught by the Bible. The belief is first implanted in the mind: “God is too good to kill anyone. True love means never ever taking life.” This is a false concept of love. However when once this idea has been accepted, the next step is that the Bible must be bent to fit this idea. It matters not how many verses must be twisted, chopped or ignored. “Thus saith the Lord,” must be overruled by, “does it fit my doctrine?” In all honesty, is this the way to study the Bible?

No. The proper way is to read the Bible, hear what it has to say and base our beliefs upon its teachings. Thus we may discover what is truth. When we find things which are hard to understand let us seek for understanding through prayer and careful study, but never resort to denial of the plainest teaching of the word of God. Why was it necessary for God to order the death of women, children, sheep, oxen etc? This is hard to understand but there was a reason why God had to do it. It did not make Him happy to do it but there is something to be learned here and we cannot learn it by denying the Scriptures. Let us accept what the word of God says as our starting point, and then we can move on from there.

When we examine this doctrine carefully we find a dangerous principle at work. What is it? It is simply this: Even if the Bible says it, I wont believe it if it doesn't fit in with my ideas. This is surely a dangerous approach to take in studying the Bible.

Let us note that there are certain passages in the Bible where it says that God did a certain thing, while another passage clearly indicates that it was Satan who was responsible. One example of this is where David was tempted to number Israel (2 Samuel 24:1). In this particular reference it says:

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Sam 24:1)

However, when the same story is told in 1 Chronicles it says:

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1 Chr 21:1)

Here we see plainly that in a sense, God did the thing, because He allowed it to happen. He had a purpose in allowing it. Nevertheless, the active agent in the temptation was actually Satan. So we know that there are times when God does take the blame, or accept responsibility, even though He does not personally perform the action. The question, though is not whether it happens SOMETIMES. Of course it happens at times, but the question is, is it true in every single case? The evidence is very clear. This happens sometimes, but is not true in ALL cases. Some of the Bible records are so plain and unmistakable that there is no way that an honest person can interpret them to be saying that God was only taking the blame while somebody else was actually at fault.

The Character of God

It has been said that the issue in the understanding of this doctrine is the character of God. I agree. The greatest fault of this doctrine is that it distorts the character of God. It presents God in a light which is not the truth. This means that we end up worshipping a false philosophical God. A God of our own imagination. Is this not idolatry?

We do not want a false concept of love. We do not want a false concept of God!! Many parents today will not punish their children. Why? They “love” them too much to cause them pain! Is this love? A sentiment which is too weak to do what is necessary is not true love but is rather an imposter which results in the uncontrollable, dangerous society in which we live today.

Surely, if we are required to have a character like God's and God never ever destroys life, what shall we do when plagued by rats, cockroaches, flies, or mosquitoes? Surely there must be something wrong with a doctrine which creates a moral dilemma for me every time I am forced to kill a mosquito! We may destroy a wasps' nest, not because of feelings of vengeance or vindictiveness. Feelings are not the issue. But it may be built in a place where its very existence is a threat to the safety of my children. It does not matter how I feel. If I care for the welfare of my family I must do something about it. If I am too weak or squeamish or busy or have a moral conflict about it, then I must get somebody else to destroy the nest. This is the simple fact.

Those who believe in this doctrine state that God does not kill those who are continually suffering as the slaves of sin. Instead He leaves them to the tender mercies of Satan who tortures them at will. Which is the greater mercy, the more loving thing to do? To kill irredeemable sinners or to leave them to the “mercy” of Satan?

Thou Shalt Not Kill

What is it to kill? Killing is basically the performance of any action which results in the death of another. If I perform an action which causes someone to die, then I may be said to have killed that person. I may shoot somebody myself, pay somebody to strangle him, or remove all access to food so that he eventually starves to death. It does not matter how I do it. If my action results in the death of another person, then it is I who have killed that person. I am the responsible party. Therefore, the judge who passes the death sentence on a murderer is responsible for killing him. The man who hangs him is also responsible. They have both killed him.

The sixth commandment says, “thou shalt not kill.” We find this command in Exodus chapter 20. Did God mean what He said when He gave this command? Did He intend that the Israelites should take it seriously? Did He expect them to obey? Certainly He did! Why then did He, a few verses later in the very next chapter seemingly order them to disobey this command?

He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. (Exo 21:12)
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exo 21:17)
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (Exo 22:18)
Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. (Exo 22:19)

Did God contradict Himself? Not at all. The fact of the matter is that when God said, “thou shalt not kill,” He clearly was not referring to just and judicial acts of killing and execution. He was referring to acts of murder. Deliberate, unjust, premeditated killing. This, you shall not do because God NEVER does this. God's character is that He never murders anyone; He never is the reason why a person is destroyed.

Ellen White wrote in one place:

“God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself.” {COL 84.}

If this statement is taken out of context it may seem to support the view that God never takes the life of any person. However, The word of God can never contradict itself. Once we understand this, the meaning of this quote from Ellen White is simple. God never ever predestines any man to be destroyed. God never ever arranges circumstances so that a soul may be lost. Every man chooses his own way, charts his own course and in this sense destroys himself. He chooses the way which leads to death. Notice that in this sense, even Satan, the great destroyer, may be said to “destroy no man.” In the above quotation, even he is not given the credit for destroying men, but, “every man destroys himself.” It is clear that this, and similar quotes should not be used as a basis for claiming that God never removes a person's life. This is talking about destruction in the sense of choosing it, and not in the sense of executing it. Here is another quote from Ellen White which teaches in the clearest possible way that God does commission His angels to destroy, or kill men:

The same angel who had come from the royal courts to rescue Peter, had been the messenger of wrath and judgment to Herod. The angel smote Peter to arouse him from slumber; it was with a different stroke that he smote the wicked king, laying low his pride and bringing upon him the punishment of the Almighty. Herod died in great agony of mind and body, under the retributive judgment of God. {AA 152}

Men choose their own course, decide their own actions, but when they come to the place where they have so perverted themselves that they are no longer fit to live, then God Himself may remove their lives or commission His agents to do it. There is nothing in this which is contrary to God's character of love. God who is strong enough and loving enough to give life, is also strong enough to take that life when it is clear that it has been perverted beyond hope of recovery. If all killing is evil, and God never does it, because it is evil, then it means that He has ordered His servants to do what is evil MANY, MANY times. Could He then be a good person?

Motives

Actions are nothing. Motives are everything. At least this is true when it comes to questions of guilt. If I sprinkle poison in a bowl of soup thinking it is salt, and accidentally kill all the people who drink that soup, then I have killed several people. Am I then guilty of murder? The answer is no. If, however, I knowingly sprinkle the poison in the soup, then I am guilty of murder. The action itself is not the critical issue where guilt is concerned. The critical question is “what motive prompts the action?” In the same way, killing may be an innocent act or it may be a murderous deed. It is the motive which counts.

The point is that, removing a life is just an action. It can be accomplished in a thousand ways. What really is important is the question of what prompts that killing. What is the motive, the reason behind it? Is it hatred? Malice? Retaliation? Or is it mercy or justice? God may send an angel to execute those who are unfit to live, He may send a flood of waters, or He may send fire and brimstone from heaven. He may send His servants as He sent the Israelites against the Canaanites; He may permit the evil person to be destroyed by Satan or his angels. However, the result is ultimately the same. God has carried out righteous judgment and has executed those who were no longer fit to live. God has performed it, God has ordained it, God has commissioned it, therefore it is He who destroys the wicked. This is justice and is not contradictory to a true concept of love.

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy. (Rev 16:5,6)

Let us acknowledge something: God is never cruel, never vindictive, never causes unnecessary pain. Yet sometimes an action may seem cruel or vindictive to us, only because we do not understand all the factors. Let us bow in humility and accept what the Scripture says! Who are we to judge the words of God? When God told Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, was this an act of cruelty? On the surface it seems so. Hagar and Ishmael suffered a great deal as a result of what seemed like a harsh command. This does not seem like the work of a God of love, so what shall we do? Shall we conclude that Satan gave this command to Abraham? If we follow the principle of interpretation of those who say that God does not kill, then we will have to conclude that this must have been the work of Satan! However, as humble, finite, foolish mortals, the correct thing to do is to accept the word of God. God did give this command. Let us now seek to understand why. Let us see if we can discover what terrible factors were at work in this situation which forced a God of love and mercy to make such a seemingly harsh decree. With this attitude we may possibly learn God's lessons, but not if we decide that the Bible must be wrong!

A Summary & Additional Thoughts

Additional Problems with the Doctrine

Those who believe that God does not kill say that God will not work contrary to His own principles and that incidents which seem to contradict this “principle” must be overlooked and put aside in the name of “faith.” This approach to God's word is wrong. There are some premises and assumptions upon which this doctrine is built which are faulty, and if the foundation is crooked the building cannot be true.

1. Firstly there is the false conclusion that removal of life is contrary to God's character, because the Ten commandments say, “Thou shalt not kill.” The fact is that this commandment literally reads, “thou shalt do no MURDER.” In the very next chapter of the Bible, God Himself gives several circumstances under which he ordered that the transgressor should be killed.

2. Secondly, the principle that “God never kills, but always withdraws His presence,” is established using SOME facts but not ALL the facts. All the facts would show that God works in this way MANY times, but not all the time. All the facts would show that there are times when God Himself actually does personally remove life, or orders the removal of life, even though He sometimes uses other means. You see, a great deal hangs upon the question of whether we say ALWAYS or SOMETIMES. The facts all support sometimes, but if we say always, then we must ignore some of the facts. We find that there are questions which we must ignore and refuse to answer.

3. Thirdly, it is stated that God accepts the blame for deeds which He has not done. Have we forgotten that one of God's commandments is, “thou shalt not bear false witness?” If God accepts blame when He doesn't deserve it, is this not a form of falsehood? The fact is that God is sovereign, therefore He is responsible. The case of Job shows this. Job had done nothing wrong. There was no evil in Job which should have caused God to withdraw His presence from him. Nevertheless God chose to remove His protection. Here, it was God's choice, not Job's. Who then was responsible? Who then was the cause of the removal of Job's goods and children? God had the power to restrain or to permit. He chose to permit and therefore, He did not merely “assume responsibility,” He was responsible.

4. Fourthly, there is no explanation of the clear, unequivocal statements made by Biblical prophets (many of them) that God commanded them to give orders for somebody to be killed. Is it because these facts completely overthrow the principle that “God does not kill” and proves it to be based on faulty assumptions? One question which it is very difficult to get an answer for is, “who gave the order to Samuel that the Amalekites should be destroyed.” Can it be that there is no answer because of a refusal to accept the only reasonable answer? The truth is that there are only three possible options:

(a) God told them to kill.

(b) Satan told them to kill and they thought it was God who told them, or else they deliberately misled the people.

(c) They imagined that they were receiving orders from God, but in actual fact it was only their imagination.

If (a) is correct, then it is plain that God does believe in killing under certain circumstances, or else He commands His servants to do what He Himself would not do (how inconsistent!).

If (b) is correct, then the implications are frightening. The Bible tells us (if we can believe what it says) that if a “prophet shall presume to speak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, …. even that prophet shall die.” (Deut. 18:20). This would mean that Moses Himself who made the above statement, as well as, Samuel, David etc. had all spoken in the name of the Lord when the Lord had not sent them (Ex.32:26,27; 1 Sam. 15:2,3; 1 Kings 20:14; Num. 15:32-35). This would have made them false prophets whose words could not be trusted and who were deserving of death,. Yet a great portion of the Holy Scriptures (which according to Jesus “cannot be broken”. John 10:35) was written by these very men! Shall we believe that when Moses and Samuel said, “thus saith the Lord” we should really read, “thus saith Satan?”

If (c ) is correct, then the Bible was written by deluded men who were victims of their own fanciful imagination. This would mean that the Scriptures are a fable and our hope of salvation is vain.

Some find it possible to brush the above-mentioned facts aside and to relegate them to matters “not yet understood.” I find it impossible to do this. They stare me in the face as plain, incontrovertible facts and tell me that the doctrine that God does not kill is based upon false premises.

5. Fifthly, in advocating this doctrine, statements have often been manipulated to give a meaning which is not warranted by the context, or else words have been chosen to create a false impression. I will give two examples:

(a). When referring to the question of whether God kills, it has often been said, “God never murders, annihilates, wipes out or destroys anyone.” The words are chosen to deliberately give the impression that all killing is evil, and that all who believe that God removes life, believe in a tyrannical and merciless God who is vengeful and possesses evil attitudes. God never “murders” anyone. My God is not a murderer. He is not vindictive, spiteful or vengeful. The question is whether a person may kill, and still be loving, merciful, just and good. The answer, according to the Scriptures and reason, is, yes.

(b) Another example is the use of statements by E.G. White which are used as pillars upon which to build the doctrine. Many of these statements when examined in context are found to be saying something completely different from the meaning which those who advocate the “God does not kill” doctrine give to it. One statement which is often used in this way is the one found in Christ's Object Lessons on page 84.

God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. {COL 84}

This sentence, in isolation, seems to be supporting the belief that God never ever removes a person's life. However, when we examine the rest of the passage, we discover that the word “destroy” has a broader meaning than simply the removal of life, and it is in this broader sense that the word “destroy is used here. In this quotation, not even Satan is given the credit for destroying men. Here is the rest of the paragraph:

Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. His history is a fearful illustration of the truth of the words that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Gal. 6:7. Did men but realize this, they would be careful what seed they sow. {COL 84-5}

The end result of Pharaoh's personal choices was the destruction of his first-born and the Egyptian armies in the Red Sea. Pharaoh destroyed himself in that he chose the way of rebellion against God. He chose the way of destruction. Nevertheless, it is clear that he himself was not the agent in taking his own life, neither did he personally kill his firstborn or his armies. Another power was the agent which carried out the actual sentence of execution, though Pharaoh himself chose the way. Another statement which is used in this way is the one found on page 392 of Patriarchs and Prophets:

The Lord had never commanded them to “go up and fight.” It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}

This statement, we are told, reveals to us the fact that God never planned that the Israelites should use violence in conquering Canaan. His original plan was that they should never have lifted a sword in doing battle with the Canaanites. Here again we find a manipulation of the statement, to give it a totally unwarranted meaning. This is not fair or honest reasoning. Surely those who advocate this meaning of the statement must be aware of the context and of other statements in the same book which have bearing upon this statement. Below, we see the statement in context, and then a few more statements a few pages later which clearly reveal the meaning of the first statement.

God had made it their privilege and their duty to enter the land at the time of His appointment, but through their willful neglect that permission had been withdrawn. Satan had gained his object in preventing them from entering Canaan; and now he urged them on to do the very thing, in the face of the divine prohibition, which they had refused to do when God required it. Thus the great deceiver gained the victory by leading them to rebellion the second time. They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts in gaining possession of Canaan; yet now they presumed upon their own strength to accomplish the work independent of divine aid. “We have sinned against the Lord,” they cried; “we will go up and fight, according to all that the Lord our God commanded us.” Deuteronomy 1:41. So terribly blinded had they become by transgression. The Lord had never commanded them to “go up and fight.” It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392}

This is the statement in context. We can see clearly that the question was not whether or not the Israelites were going to be actually engaged in fighting, but rather whether or not they would have divine aid in the battle. They had distrusted the power of God to work with their efforts … yet now they presumed upon their own strength to accomplish the work independent of divine aid. This fact is more clearly brought out in the following statements from the same book, just a few pages later:

The Israelites crossed the river Arnon and advanced upon the foe. An engagement took place, in which the armies of Israel were victorious; and, following up the advantage gained, they were soon in possession of the country of the Amorites. It was the Captain of the Lord's host who vanquished the enemies of His people; and He would have done the same thirty-eight years before had Israel trusted in Him. {PP 435.1}

The calm faith of their leader inspired the people with confidence in God. They trusted all to His omnipotent arm, and He did not fail them. Not mighty giants nor walled cities, armed hosts nor rocky fortresses, could stand before the Captain of the Lord's host. The Lord led the army; the Lord discomfited the enemy; the Lord conquered in behalf of Israel. The giant king and his army were destroyed, and the Israelites soon took possession of the whole country. Thus was blotted from the earth that strange people who had given themselves up to iniquity and abominable idolatry. {PP 436.2}

Notice that what God did thirty-eight years later, is exactly what He would have done at the defeat at Kadesh Barnea if Israel had trusted in Him. What did He do? How did they win this battle? Did they lay down arms and wait for God to destroy the Canaanites independent of human instrumentalities? No, they obeyed God's commandments implicitly and co-operated with Him in destroying the Amorites. They had to fight, but God gave them supernatural strength, skill and protection, exactly as He would have done thirty-eight years earlier at Kadesh Barnea if they had allowed Him to work with them

A doctor may remove a lung which is diseased with cancer. The doctor removes the lung, but who is the destroyer? Is it not the cancer? This seems so straightforward a matter that I find it hard to understand the statement, “God is not a destroyer, therefore He cannot remove life.” Destruction is the malicious, unwarranted dismantling of what is valuable and good. In this work, Satan is the great destroyer. However, there is a good and justifiable removal of what is evil and useless. This process may be referred to as “pruning” or “cleansing.” This is not an evil, but rather a good, helpful and necessary process. This, the Bible clearly teaches that God does.

There is one striking quote which I have never seen quoted by those who believe that God does not kill. Since Ellen White quotes are used so frequently I must bring it to our attention and I hope we will examine it carefully. It is taken from Patriarchs and Prophets page 404-5.

Korah would not have taken the course he did had he known that all the directions and reproofs communicated to Israel were from God. But he might have known this. God had given overwhelming evidence that He was leading Israel. But Korah and his companions rejected light until they became so blinded that the most striking manifestations of His power were not sufficient to convince them; they attributed them all to human or satanic agency . The same thing was done by the people, who the day after the destruction of Korah and his company came to Moses and Aaron, saying, “Ye have killed the people of the Lord.” Notwithstanding they had had the most convincing evidence of God's displeasure at their course, in the destruction of the men who had deceived them, they dared to attribute His judgments to Satan, declaring that through the power of the evil one, Moses and Aaron had caused the death of good and holy men. It was this act that sealed their doom. They had committed the sin against the Holy Spirit, a sin by which man's heart is effectually hardened against the influence of divine grace. “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man,” said Christ, “it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.” Matthew 12:32. These words were spoken by our Saviour when the gracious works which He had performed through the power of God were attributed by the Jews to Beelzebub. It is through the agency of the Holy Spirit that God communicates with man; and those who deliberately reject this agency as satanic, have cut off the channel of communication between the soul and Heaven. {PP 404-5}