To forgive, or not to forgive?

[spockrates]

Forgiving is an act of freeing yourself of the anger of righteousness. So go ahead and give yourself a great gift. Forgiving does not mean forgetting, and it further doesn’t mean to become a victim of another’s wrong actions. If the person persists in these actions, you avoid them at all cost. Some people need to be loved at a “distance.”

Welcome to the dialog, Caoin!



Yes, I hear what you are saying, but I wonder: Is that ALL that forgiving is? or is forgiving something more that not feeling anger? I mean, at Mass we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” By these words do we mean, “Don’t hold a grudge against us, but throw us in Hell anyway”? or are we actually praying that God will forgive the consequences of our sins when we forgive the consequences of the sins of others? I like how some translations of the Bible render our Forgiver’s words:

“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive the debts others owe us.”

(Matthew 6:12)

 

[spockrates]

Okay, Spock, you’re making me dizzy now! I would say if Jesus has asked us to forgive everyone every offense, then that is what we should do (even though I, personally, fall short of this goal many, many times). If Jesus does not forgive the unrepentant soul, then that is for Him to do, because He is the just judge, not I. So if Jesus withholds forgiveness, then that is okay because He is the just judge and He determines that withholding forgiveness is just. I cannot make that determination, so I, therefore, must forgive (even though I admit, I don’t always do).

LOL! Yes, I seem to have that effect on people!



But them, I’m a disciple of Socrates, as well as Jesus, so I suppose my mentor would say I’m doing well. After all, Socrates said:

The world, in general, has not found me out, and therefore people only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end!

(Theaetetus, 149)

But, like Socrates (and like Jesus) my questions are designed to help us better understand the truth, rather than to make it merely clear as mud! Let me tell you what I think. I think Socrates was correct when he said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

I also think that he is describing the source of what is making our heads swim. Please let me explain: I think that we are making a mistake by thinking that forgiveness is one thing, when it is actually many. Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, so too there is (it seems to me) more than one way to forgive. Think about it, each time that you have used the word forgive, you appear to be thinking about not having hard feelings. But are there not other ways to forgive? For example, if someone owes you money, you might forgive the debt. If someone has wronged you and deserves to suffer the consequences, you might pardon her for that wrong and forgive the consequences.

Now there is one thing about which we both agree: We should always forgive. That is a fact, for Jesus said:

“But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

(Matthew 6:15)

But He also said this:

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

(John 20:23)

So could it be that the kind of forgiving He is speaking of in Matthew 6 is different from the kind of forgiving he is speaking of in John 20? Could it be that in Matthew He is talking apples, but in John He is talking oranges?

Let’s say that in Matthew 6 He is speaking of the kind of forgiveness you are speaking–not holding a grudge. I’m thinking that we can (with God’s help) and perhaps even should forgive everyone in this way. Now let’s say that in John 20 He is not speaking of having no hard feelings, but of a withholding forgiveness of a different kind. What kind of forgiveness do you think we are sometimes justified (and even should) withhold?

 

[Ender]

Now there is one thing about which we both agree: We should always forgive. That is a fact, for Jesus said:

“But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Mat 6:15)

I don’t think your interpretation is correct; I believe that our obligation to forgive is predicated on whether the offender repents of his actions.

*Our Lord was speaking to Peter *[Mat 18:22] of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. (Aquinas)

This same point is made in Luke:

Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Lk 17:4)

JPII recognizes that forgiveness is conditional in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia:

*Blessed Isaac of Stella in one of his talks emphasizes the full communion of Christ with the church in the forgiveness of sins: “… The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent, that is to say, to a person whom Christ has touched with his grace: Christ does not wish to consider anything forgiven in a person who despises the church”

Ender
*

 

[joanofarc2008]

Thanks for the link, Joan! I’ll check it out and let you know what I think. In the meantime, please answer me this: Doesn’t Jesus statement in this passage of Sacred Scripture teach that sometimes it is OK (even the most right thing to do) to NOT forgive?

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

(John 20:23)

I mean, even if we can demonstrate that this passage applies only to priests and other pastors, isn’t the implication that sometimes a priest cannot forgive someone for her sin if (for example) she refuses to repent of that sin? I imagine there are rare times when a priest must tell someone at confession that her sins will not be forgiven until she repents. Don’t you?

This was not speaking about interpersonal Christian forgiveness - this was about binding and loosing - this is the problem with reading Fundamentally rather than contextually.

 

[spockrates]

This was not speaking about interpersonal Christian forgiveness - this was about binding and loosing - this is the problem with reading Fundamentally rather than contextually.

Please explain the difference between interpersonal forgiveness and binding and loosing forgiveness.

 

[spockrates]

I don’t think your interpretation is correct; I believe that our obligation to forgive is predicated on whether the offender repents of his actions.

*Our Lord was speaking to Peter *[Mat 18:22] of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. (Aquinas)

This same point is made in Luke:

Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Lk 17:4)

JPII recognizes that forgiveness is conditional in Reconciliatio et Paenitentia:

*Blessed Isaac of Stella in one of his talks emphasizes the full communion of Christ with the church in the forgiveness of sins: “… *The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent, that is to say, to a person whom Christ has touched with his grace: Christ does not wish to consider anything forgiven in a person who despises the church”

Ender*
*

Looks like you have the end game in sight, Ender!



But I’m not so sure it’s over, yet. I’m thinking that we can also forgive those who don’t repent because they don’t know what they’ve done is wrong. As Jesus said to his enemies:

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains!"

(John 9:41)

I think He means that someone who is blind to the wrongness of her actions should be forgiven on the grounds that she is not culpable for her sin. However I think you might be correct that those who are culpable for their sins (for example, those who know they’ve done wrong) do need to repent in order to be forgiven.

Then again, perhaps that all depends on what we mean by the word forgive. What do you think the word means in the case of the passage you cited, which is Luke 17? How would you define the word forgive in Christ’s command?

"If he repents, forgive him.

(Luke 17:3)

 

[joanofarc2008]

Please explain the difference between interpersonal forgiveness and binding and loosing forgiveness.

Binding and loosing was the set of verses that gave the disciples and those that followed in the line of apostolic succession the authority of Reconiciliation (in Matthew there is also some belief that there is some additional authority for Papal Infallibility but that is way off track in this thread) - in other words you are confusing Sacramental absolution with forgiveness which is what tanked the last conversation.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I do not think it possible for the Son of God to forgive differently from the Holy Spirit, or the Father God, for that matter.

I’m not sure I agree with this. In Matthew 12:31-32, a more complete statement regarding sin against the Holy Spirit says as follows:

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

I read this as Jesus and the Holy Spirit forgiving differently. Blaspheme against Jesus and Jesus will forgive you. Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.

spockrates:

I’m thinking this: Forgiveness is conditional. For the one who does not know what she is doing, we should forgive her because she meets the condition of being ignorant of her sin. For the one who does know what she is doing, we should respectfully confront her in order to convince her to repent, because for her, repentance is the condition she must meet to be forgiven. Does that sound right to you?

Forgiveness comes in degrees as you have outlined here. I believe that is different than conditional or unconditional forgiveness.

• Degree: She is ignorant of her sin. We need to forgive her unconditionally and teach her that what she did was a sin.
• Degree: She is not ignorant of her sin. We need to forgive her unconditionally and confront her that what she did was a sin.

Jesus is our example. He forgave us. All those people who crucified him were not ignorant of the fact that they murdered an innocent man. They knew he was innocent, yet they killed him anyway. Jesus still forgave them without condition. Matthew 12:32 says whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven.

The Holy Spirit is the Grace we receive from Him. If “she” is endowed with the grace of God via the Holy Spirit, and commits sin (blasphemes) against the Spirit of God, that would be unforgiveable - conditional unforgiveness - the condition being that sin (blasphemy) was committed against the Holy Spirit.

 

[spockrates]

Binding and loosing was the set of verses that gave the disciples and those that followed in the line of apostolic succession the authority of Reconiciliation (in Matthew there is also some belief that there is some additional authority for Papal Infallibility but that is way off track in this thread) - in other words you are confusing Sacramental absolution with forgiveness which is what tanked the last conversation.

Well, it seems logical to me to infer that Sacramental Absolution is a kind of forgiveness. After all, you said that this passage of Sacred Scripture,

"If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

(John 20:23)

describes Sacramental Absolution, and Jesus uses the word forgive, rather than absolution. In other words,

Sacramental Absolution = Forgiving

Would you agree that Sacramental Absolution is a kind of forgiveness, albeit a kind that only a Apostolic Successor can give?

 

[spockrates]

The proportionate measure of mercy that is granted to us for our transgressions, we ought to exact the same proportionate mercy upon those who exact instances of transgressions against us. I believe he wanted him to have compassion AND completely forgive the debt owed to him.

I tend to agree that forgiveness is a matter of degree. What if the fellow servant had not begged for mercy? If that was the case, I believe the master would not have been angry enough to throw the wicked servant (who would not have acted so wicked then) into prison to repay his own debt. But would some measure of mercy had been expected of the wicked servant towards the fellow servant, to some degree anyway? Keep in mind that giving or obtaining degrees of forgiveness isn’t the same thing as conditional or unconditional forgiveness.

Let’s compare the two examples: In the first, the debt is forgiven. Why? Because the debtor begged for forgiveness. In the second, the debt is not forgiven. Why? Because the debtor failed to beg for forgiveness. In the former, the debtor is forgiven; in the latter, the debtor is NOT forgiven. The latter is a case of NOT forgiving a person. True?

I’m not sure I agree with this. In Matthew 12:31-32, a more complete statement regarding sin against the Holy Spirit says as follows:

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

I read this as Jesus and the Holy Spirit forgiving differently. Blaspheme against Jesus and Jesus will forgive you. Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable.

An alternate explanation is that the sin (not the method of forgiveness) is different. Sinning against the Holy Spirit might be a more serious offense than sinning against the man Jesus–for that is what the title Son of Man appears to mean. It comes down to what the sin of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is, and how that is different from persecuting the man Jesus Christ. My thought is that Jesus was saying this:

1. 
   *]Those who persecute Jesus and don’t know He is the Son of God are ignorant of their sin
   *]Those who persecute Jesus and do know He is the Son of God are NOT ignorant of their sin
   *]Those who know Jesus is the Son of God and say His work is that of the Devil, rather than that of the Holy Spirit, commit the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit
   *]To knowingly sin against God by blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and to refuse to repent of such sin, is a more serious offense than persecuting Jesus in ignorance
   *]God can forgive those who persecuted Jesus in ignorance without repenting, for they did not know what they were doing was wrong
   *]God cannot forgive those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit without repenting, for they did know what they were doing was wrong
   *]God forgives different people differently, depending on the circumstances–those who know they did wrong and refuse to repent are not forgiven; those who do not know they did wrong and don’t know they need to repent are forgiven
   
   Therefore:
   This is a case of different kinds of sin, not of the Son of God forgiving differently than the Holy Spirit.
   
   Another logical argument is this:
   
   1. 
      *]Jesus is the Son of God
      *]the Son of God is God
      *]the Father God is God
      *]the Holy Spirit is God
      *]it is impossible for one to forgive differently than he himself forgives
      *]God cannot forgive differently than He Himself forgives
      
      Therefore:
      the Son of God cannot forgive differently than the Holy Spirit

 

[spockrates]

Forgiveness comes in degrees as you have outlined here. I believe that is different than conditional or unconditional forgiveness.

• Degree: She is ignorant of her sin. We need to forgive her unconditionally and teach her that what she did was a sin.
• Degree: She is not ignorant of her sin. We need to forgive her unconditionally and confront her that what she did was a sin.

Jesus is our example. He forgave us. All those people who crucified him were not ignorant of the fact that they murdered an innocent man. They knew he was innocent, yet they killed him anyway. Jesus still forgave them without condition. Matthew 12:32 says whoever speaks against the Son of Man will be forgiven.

The Holy Spirit is the Grace we receive from Him. If “she” is endowed with the grace of God via the Holy Spirit, and commits sin (blasphemes) against the Spirit of God, that would be unforgiveable - conditional unforgiveness - the condition being that sin (blasphemy) was committed against the Holy Spirit.

Regarding those for whom Jesus prayed, I think that He must not have been praying for the ones who knew He was the Son of God and blasphemed the Holy Spirit, because (as you said) those blasphemers remained unforgiven. Consider the context of Jesus’ words:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

(Luke 23:34)

I infer from this that He was praying for the ones who “divided up his clothes by casting lots,” who were the Roman soldiers who executed Him. They did not know what they were doing, because they thought Jesus was a common criminal–not the Son of God. As Saint Paul the Apostle wrote:

None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

(1 Corinthians 2:8)

Hence, they did not understand what they were doing. But of the Jewish religious leaders who handed Jesus over to the Romans, He says:

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

(John 9:41)

Unlike the Roman soldiers, they were not blind to their sin, so they remained guilty and unforgiven.

I think it will help to consider what the word conditional means:

con·di·tion·al
 
[kuhn-dish-uh-nl]
–adjective

1. imposing, containing, subject to, or depending on a condition or conditions; not absolute; made or allowed on certain terms: conditional acceptance.
2. Grammar . (of a sentence, clause, mood, or word) involving or expressing a condition, as the first clause in the sentence If it rains, he won’t go.
3. Logic .
   a. (of a proposition) asserting that the existence or occurrence of one thing or event depends on the existence or occurrence of another thing or event; hypothetical.
   b. (of a syllogism) containing at least one conditional proposition as a premise.

In our case, we are speaking of definition (1). Now consider the examples:

**(a) Forgiving the servant. ** Forgiving the servant is dependent on, or conditioned on, his conduct. The master’s forgiving the servant is dependent on his willingness to forgive another.

(b) Forgiving Jesus’ persecutors. Forgiving those who persecuted Jesus was dependent on, or conditioned on, their knowledge of their sin. God forgive those who crucified Jesus if they did not know what they were doing, but did not forgive those who persecuted Jesus by way of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because they did know what they were doing.

In the case of (a) forgiveness depends on, or is conditioned on, the action one takes when given the opportunity to forgive others as God forgave them. Therefore, according to the definition of the word conditional, case (a) is an example of conditional forgiveness.

In the case of (b) forgiveness depends on, or is conditioned on, the awareness, or lack of awareness, of the sin for which she does not repent. If one is aware she sinned, and refuses to repent, she is not forgiven. If one is not aware of the sin, and does not know she needs to repent, she is forgiven. Therefore, according to the definition of the word conditional, case (b) is an example of conditional forgiveness.

In both cases, there are conditions the person meets to be forgiven. See what I mean?

 

[Ender]

I’m thinking that we can also forgive those who don’t repent because they don’t know what they’ve done is wrong. … I think He means that someone who is blind to the wrongness of her actions should be forgiven on the grounds that she is not culpable for her sin.

I don’t have an argument against this point; it seems right to me.

However I think you might be correct that those who are culpable for their sins (for example, those who know they’ve done wrong) do need to repent in order to be forgiven.

Clearly I agree with this point and it is useful to keep this in mind when someone says we must always forgive. That isn’t true and is a rather significant misunderstanding of what the Church teaches.

Then again, perhaps that all depends on what we mean by the word forgive.

I don’t have a personal definition of “forgive” but one thing it doesn’t mean is that someone who has been forgiven should not therefore be punished. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean that the debt of punishment is excused.

Ender

 

[spockrates]

I don’t have an argument against this point; it seems right to me.
Clearly I agree with this point and it is useful to keep this in mind when someone says we must always forgive. That isn’t true and is a rather significant misunderstanding of what the Church teaches.
I don’t have a personal definition of “forgive” but one thing it doesn’t mean is that someone who has been forgiven should not therefore be punished. Forgiveness does not necessarily mean that the debt of punishment is excused.

Ender

Good to hear from you again, Ender! I don’t think we need to invent definitions of the word forgive, for this online dictionary has done that hard work for us:



**for·give
**
[fer-giv] Show IPA verb, -gave, -giv·en, -giv·ing.
–verb (used with object:

1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one’s enemies.
5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan.

Looking at these definitions, I quite agree with you that one should not always forgive everyone, for everything, every time, without exception in the ways described by definitions (1), (2), (3) or (5). But what do you think of method (4)? Do you think it possible (and even appropriate) to forgive everyone, for everything, every time, without exception in the way of (4). Should we always cease to feel resentment against someone, no matter how seriously they wrong us?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Let’s compare the two examples: In the first, the debt is forgiven. Why? Because the debtor begged for forgiveness. In the second, the debt is not forgiven. Why? Because the debtor failed to beg for forgiveness. In the former, the debtor is forgiven; in the latter, the debtor is NOT forgiven. The latter is a case of NOT forgiving a person. True?

It is unclear to me what two examples you are referring to. For this reason, I will refrain for the time being whether I find it true or not.

If you are referring to the parable itself, it is clear that at first the wicked servant begged for mercy and was subsequently forgiven. However, it is not clear whether he begged for mercy the second time. The parable is silent on the matter.

spockrates:

…It comes down to what the sin of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is…

I believe this is the crux of the matter for me. I tend to see sin of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as not accepting the free unconditional offer of forgiveness for sin. Having said that, you have certainly given me much to chew on.

spockrates:

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
(Luke 23:34)
I infer from this that He was praying for the ones who “divided up his clothes by casting lots,” who were the Roman soldiers who executed Him.

You may be right about that considering the fuller context.

spockrates:

…they did not understand what they were doing. But of the Jewish religious leaders who handed Jesus over to the Romans, He says:
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

(John 9:41)
Unlike the Roman soldiers, they were not blind to their sin, so they remained guilty and unforgiven.

So where does this leave us regarding whether we need to forgive “her”? Do we view her as a Roman soldier who knew not what she was doing or do we view her as a Jewish religious leader who did? Do we have the capacity as mere human beings without having the full context of the offender’s actions in our view no matter how plain they may appear to the human eye?

spockrates:

…(b) Forgiving Jesus’ persecutors. Forgiving those who persecuted Jesus was dependent on, or conditioned on, their knowledge of their sin. God forgive those who crucified Jesus if they did not know what they were doing, but did not forgive those who persecuted Jesus by way of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, because they did know what they were doing.

…

In both cases, there are conditions the person meets to be forgiven. See what I mean?

I think I understand where you are coming from. However, there is something that seems incomplete to me with this example. Are you suggesting that these religious leaders were incapable of repenting sometime in the future of what they had done since you have put them in the realm of having committed the unforgiveable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

 

[spockrates]

It is unclear to me what two examples you are referring to. For this reason, I will refrain for the time being whether I find it true or not.

If you are referring to the parable itself, it is clear that at first the wicked servant begged for mercy and was subsequently forgiven. However, it is not clear whether he begged for mercy the second time. The parable is silent on the matter.

I believe this is the crux of the matter for me. I tend to see sin of Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as not accepting the free unconditional offer of forgiveness for sin. Having said that, you have certainly given me much to chew on.

You may be right about that considering the fuller context.

So where does this leave us regarding whether we need to forgive “her”? Do we view her as a Roman soldier who knew not what she was doing or do we view her as a Jewish religious leader who did? Do we have the capacity as mere human beings without having the full context of the offender’s actions in our view no matter how plain they may appear to the human eye?

I think I understand where you are coming from. However, there is something that seems incomplete to me with this example. Are you suggesting that these religious leaders were incapable of repenting sometime in the future of what they had done since you have put them in the realm of having committed the unforgiveable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

Yes, sorry for being clear as mud! I’ll try not to muddy the waters further.



What I’m wondering is this: Are there any times when God does not forgive? It seems to me the answer is yes. Those who committed the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might be) were not forgiven, for Jesus tells us it is an unforgivable sin. Those who refuse to forgive others are not forgiven, for Jesus tells us so. Don’t you agree?

 

[spockrates]

So where does this leave us regarding whether we need to forgive “her”? Do we view her as a Roman soldier who knew not what she was doing or do we view her as a Jewish religious leader who did? Do we have the capacity as mere human beings without having the full context of the offender’s actions in our view no matter how plain they may appear to the human eye?

I think I understand where you are coming from. However, there is something that seems incomplete to me with this example. Are you suggesting that these religious leaders were incapable of repenting sometime in the future of what they had done since you have put them in the realm of having committed the unforgiveable sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m thinking that the nature of an unforgivable sin must be one that meets two conditions: (1) The person is aware it is sinful and seriously wrong (such as a mortal sin), and (2) the person must refuse to repent. So I’m wondering if God forgives those who commit such a serious sin–who know it is wrong and refuse to confess it is wrong and change their behavior.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"spockrates:

What I’m wondering is this: Are there any times when God does not forgive? It seems to me the answer is yes. Those who committed the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might be) were not forgiven, for Jesus tells us it is an unforgivable sin. Those who refuse to forgive others are not forgiven, for Jesus tells us so. Don’t you agree?

Yes I agree. I do believe God, in His ultimate Wisdom, places conditions on forgiveness. Did I just contradict myself? I place a distinction between the different roles the three persons of the blessed Trinity have within the Godhead, and I don’t think it contradicts the nature of God. Jesus, the Son of Man unconditionally forgives, whereas the Holy Spirit does not. I will however continue to ponder your alternate view of the passages that I listed from Matthew chapter 12. It may be a both/and rather than either/or regarding that passage.

No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m thinking that the nature of an unforgivable sin must be one that meets two conditions: (1) The person is aware it is sinful and seriously wrong (such as a mortal sin), and (2) the person must refuse to repent.

Yes. I believe the unforgiveable sin is one which the person committed a mortal sin (grave sin that they knew was grave sin and fully consented to that grave sin) and refuses to repent of that action knowing they need to do so to experience the embrace of God.

spockrates:

So I’m wondering if God forgives those who commit such a serious sin–who know it is wrong and refuse to confess it is wrong and change their behavior.

I’m presuming that the changed behavior is for the better.

That’s a good question. I believe that if her behavior has truly changed, she has confessed her wrong to Jesus. I do not believe one can truly change sinful behavior without acknowledging (confessing) what they did was wrong.

 

[spockrates]

Yes I agree. I do believe God, in His ultimate Wisdom, places conditions on forgiveness. Did I just contradict myself? I place a distinction between the different roles the three persons of the blessed Trinity have within the Godhead, and I don’t think it contradicts the nature of God. Jesus, the Son of Man unconditionally forgives, whereas the Holy Spirit does not. I will however continue to ponder your alternate view of the passages that I listed from Matthew chapter 12. It may be a both/and rather than either/or regarding that passage.

A formidable contradiction indeed, my friend!



If it is an actual, rather than merely an apparent one, then we must abandon it. For the reason that God gives us tells us that an actual contradiction can never be true.

Let’s see if we can determine whether it is the living truth, or a still-born lie that only resembles the living. Socrates once said something that I think might help us think this through. He asked:

Can a person both know, and not know, that which he knows?

His words bring to mind the question we seem to be considering at the moment:

Can a being (God or human) both forgive, and not forgive, the one he forgives?

Let’s consider the answer to the question: As stated previously, I believe that God cannot contradict Himself. If one person of the Trinity forgives, and another person of the Trinity does not forgive, then God both forgives and does not forgive at the same time, which is impossible. So I think we must agree that, as far as we know, the Son of God, the Father God and the Holy Spirit all forgive a person, or all do not forgive a person, but never does one of the three not forgive a person that the other two forgive. For the three are not three gods, but one God (in three persons), and one God is one being, and one being cannot both do one thing, and do the opposite thing, at the same time.

That being said, is it possible for the Son of Man (or the human Jesus) to forgive, but the Son of God (or the God Jesus) to not forgive? Here, as before, I think such would be a contradiction. If the Son of Man forgives, then it is impossible for the Son of God to not forgive, for they are one and the same being. If the Son of God does not forgive, then it is impossible for the Son of Man to not forgive, for they are one and the same being. Though they are different persons, they are one being, and one being cannot both do one thing, and do the opposite thing, both at the same time.

In both cases it is impossible for one being to both do, and at the same time not do, something. Such is a contradiction, and a contradiction, though it might at first glance appear to be a living truth, is a still-born lie. Will you at the moment, at least until more information comes to light, agree that this seems to be the truth?

 

[spockrates]

… Yes. I believe the unforgiveable sin is one which the person committed a mortal sin (grave sin that they knew was grave sin and fully consented to that grave sin) and refuses to repent of that action knowing they need to do so to experience the embrace of God. I’m presuming that the changed behavior is for the better.
That’s a good question. I believe that if her behavior has truly changed, she has confessed her wrong to Jesus. I do not believe one can truly change sinful behavior without acknowledging (confessing) what they did was wrong.

Agreed!



So there are at least some sins God does not forgive if the person who commits those sins meet at least these conditions:

1. 
   *]the sin is significantly serious
   *]the sinner knows it is a significantly serious sin
   *]the sinner refuses to confess the sin to God, or to a priest, or to others
   *]the sinner refuses to repent (that is, to try to change her behavior)
   
   These are the conditions one must meet to not be forgiven. It seems to me, then that these are the conditions one might meet to be forgiven:
   
   1. 
      *]the sin is significantly serious
      *]the sinner knows it is a significantly serious sin
      *]the sinner confesses the sin to God, or to a priest, or to others
      *]the sinner sincerely repents (that is, tries to change her behavior)
      
      The thing that would make a sin unforgivable would be to meet the former conditions, but even an unforgivable sin would become a forgivable one if the person meets the latter conditions.
      
      In either case, at least as far as God is concerned, the forgiveness is conditioned on meeting the latter conditions. Therefore, God’s forgiveness (at least in this particular example of the so-called “unforgivable” sin) is conditional.
      
      Do you agree?

 

[spockrates]

Sty:

It might help me express my thoughts using an example. Consider this:

Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” Then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” And the man got up and went home. When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

(Matthew 9:1-8)

I find it interesting that the enemies of Christ accuse Him of committing the unforgivable sin by forgiving someone!



But that aside, please consider this: Is it possible that Jesus the human (i.e., the Son of Man) forgave the man, but Jesus the God (i.e., the Son of God) did not? For that matter, is it possible that the Son of God forgave the man, but the Holy Spirit of God and the Father God did not? If the Jesus the Man forgave, but the Son of God and the Holy Spirit and the Father God did not, then how could He have the authority to forgive sins and truly say, “Your sins are forgiven”?