Unforgivable Sin & St. Thomas

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

So I am taking a writing class from a Lutheran teacher with Protestant students. However, my teacher is very open to Catholics (I'm talking reads and teaches Dante, Augustine, Church Fathers, the Bible obviously, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.)

I had a week to write this, but procrastinator that I am, saved it for the a few days before class. This is a first draft, although I've turned it in. I decided on the topic and the realized that Thomas Aquinas had (not surprisingly) already written on it. Since our argument is supposed to imitate his style, I decided not to read his writing on it until after I turned in the homework. Let me know what y'all think. I know my terms and vocab aren't necessarily spot on, but give me a break, I'm 15. God bless! The font color of my writing is blue.

 

                                                                                        Is Every Sin Forgivable?

The question currently raised is if any sin committed by any man is pardonable, or if there are certain sins which can never be forgiven.

Argument 1: In Matthew 12:31, Jesus clearly states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, therefore not every sin can be forgiven.

Argument 2: Mark 3:29-30 specifies that sins against the Holy Spirit are unpardonable, because they attribute work to the devil that is truly done by God.

Argument 3: Furthermore, Hebrews 10:29 states that there should be a worse punishment for those who insult the spirit of grace, thus there are unpardonable sins.

     I argue that there is forgiveness for any sin which is contritely confessed, because God is all-merciful and desires that everyone be with Him in Heaven. “God promised His mercy to all, and granted to His priests the license of forgiving sins without any exception.”--St. Ambrose of Milan. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit refers to a completely different action and mindset than blasphemy against the Son of God. Jesus said that sins against the Holy Spirit were unpardonable after he said sins against him were, thus there is a clear distinction between these two actions. Both kinds, though both sins, are of a different nature. By this distinction God demonstrates that it is truly His love which causes the separation of these two.

     The two types of sin, forgivable and unforgivable, have one defining distinction: intent. Without the intent on committing an unforgivable sin, one cannot be

 

committing it. An unforgivable sin, really, is denial or rejection of God's mercy. "He who created us without our help will not save us without our consent."--St.

 

Augustine of Hippo. If one wonders whether he has committed an unforgivable sin, he has not. Simply put, the only way an unforgivable sin can be committed is for

 

the sinner to deliberately reject forgiveness; one cannot accidentally do so.

     Furthermore, the value of one sinner returning to God far surpasses any boundaries which the devil tries to plant. Think of the parable of the Prodigal Son, or that of the Lost Sheep. It is quite obvious from thousands upon thousands of years of theology and philosophy that the God of the Christians will stop at nothing to forgive any sin and to accept any sinner that comes to Him. Psalm 118:1 proclaims that God's mercy endures forever. The question is whether the sinner forgives himself.

     The nature of a sin against the Holy Spirit can be summed up very well by St. Basil, a Father and Doctor of the Church. "All who call the Holy Ghost a creature we pity, on the ground that, by this utterance, they are falling into the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against him." Calling the God the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, a creature, is heresy. This does not, however, close the gate to the sinner. It is not the act of teaching contrary to scripture which eternally cuts one off from the Church of God, but the perpetuation of it until death, not trading it in for the truth.

     Answer to Argument 1: Conclusively, based on the logic presented in the apology above, there exist two distinct sins, and they are both of separate natures. God will and can forgive any sin, except those which the sinner will not forgive himself of.

      Answer to Argument 2: This is true, the work of God can never be attributed to the devil. After all, the devil can only do what his Creator allows him to do. However, this sin is unpardonable so long as the person who claims it never repents or rejects that which is untrue.

     Answer to Argument 3: Once again, this is a true statement. Those who die in sin that was deliberate, though partly done out of human weakness, do not deserve the same punishment as those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. In Dante's Inferno that concept is the basis of the plot. Every sinner's punishment is based upon the kind and degree of the sin. A blasphemer against the Holy Spirit counters God's truth, mercy, and forgiveness, not out of mere weakness, but a steadfast decision to reject forgiveness and truth. Knowingly sinning (mortal sin) is common in humans. However, if one knows and acknowledges the gravity of his sins, and remains unrepentant, that is a true sin against the Holy Spirit.

     Conclusively, there are no sins which God Himself will not pardon. God grants people the free will, out of His love and mercy, to choose whether to let Him forgive their own sins or not. One cannot forgive his own sins and claim himself entrance into Heaven, for only God has the power to admit souls into Heaven. In fact, claiming that one can get himself into Heaven is blasphemy against the Spirit, which is already established as unpardonable. Conversely, however, only the sinner can decide whether he forgives himself to let God forgive him. The question is not what kind or degree of sin God is able or willing to forgive, but whether the sinner is getting in His way. The choice is like that of Lucifer's: to serve God or himself. Sin against the Son of God is truly temporary; Sin against the Spirit of God is truly eternal.

Although St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on a similar topic, it wasn't the same question which I posed. Please correct any errors you might find!

    

[blazeingstar]

I have a friend who theories the "sin against the holy spirit" was really akin to allowing yourself to be a vessel for evil in a spiritually profound and complete way....like demonic consecration.  For this an ordinary priest, or even the Bishop may not be able to pardon.  Maybe a cardnil or a pope.

 

Was St. Basil translated?  I kind find that statement off putting....if calling the Holy Spirit a creature was an unforgivable heresy then every church with a dove in the stained glass would be condemned.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I have a friend who theories the "sin against the holy spirit" was really akin to allowing yourself to be a vessel for evil in a spiritually profound and complete way....like demonic consecration.  For this an ordinary priest, or even the Bishop may not be able to pardon.  Maybe a cardnil or a pope.

 

Was St. Basil translated?  I kind find that statement off putting....if calling the Holy Spirit a creature was an unforgivable heresy then every church with a dove in the stained glass would be condemned.

The Church seems to have established pretty clearly through Her actions that even a consecrated satanic priest can be fully redeemed. So for that reason I do not think you are on the right track with that line of thinking.

Reconciliation with the Church is typically reserved, in those extremely serious cases, to higher authorities (same with, for instance, the sin of abortion), but that is more to do with remittance of excommunication, not any sort of 'difficulty' in actually forgiving the sin.

 

Also I do not think it follows at all that a depiction of the Holy Ghost as a dove reveals some kind of attitude that calls the Holy Ghost a mere creature.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[AnneLine]

I don't have much to add to the critique of the arguments, but I do think you are doing an excellent job of imitating St. Thomas' style.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't have much to add to the critique of the arguments, but I do think you are doing an excellent job of imitating St. Thomas' style.

Agreed. That was impressive.

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

I have a friend who theories the "sin against the holy spirit" was really akin to allowing yourself to be a vessel for evil in a spiritually profound and complete way....like demonic consecration. For this an ordinary priest, or even the Bishop may not be able to pardon. Maybe a cardnil or a pope.

Was St. Basil translated? I kind find that statement off putting....if calling the Holy Spirit a creature was an unforgivable heresy then every church with a dove in the stained glass would be condemned.

Yes, demonic consecration or satanic priesthood is extremely grave and important to be taken carefully. That doesn't mean it is an irreversible, unforgiveable sin if the person repents.
I agree with Nihil. If the depiction of the Holy Spirit as a dove was the case, I supposed God should be condemned (Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan). Furthermore, Michelangelo should have been as well since he depicted God the Father as a man even though God the Father is not a creature but a creator.