The Unforgiveable Sin?

Notes from St. Thomas

St. Augustine says of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” passages that these are so difficult that there are no harder words in the entirety of the gospels.

Later this week, I want to publish a video going over St. Thomas’ teaching on this passage (please remember to turn your notifications on for my channel). I wanted to post some of my notes that I have gathered in my preliminary research. Here they are!

NOTE: This article is completely free. I do these frequently on the Substack. Be sure to click the subscribe button to get my articles in your inbox!

“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)

“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever says 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.” (Matt. 12:30-32)

“I tell you, every one who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” (Luke 10:10-12)

“Sin against the Holy Spirit is not despaired of on the part of the physician who cures, namely, God, who can save anyone in the wayfaring state in the immensity of his mercy. But it is despaired of on the part of the sick person himself, who as far as he himself is concerned, excludes every way to be cured…” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent.II.D43.Q1.A1.Rep4)

“It is deemed unforgivable, because it has nothing in it to plead forgiveness; although God does forgive it sometimes, because he is good, just as he sometimes used his power to cure a naturally incurable disease.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Rom.C2.L1.n187.5)

“We should despair of no man in this life, considering God’s omnipotence and mercy. But if we consider the circumstances of sin, some are called (Eph 2:2) children of despair.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST.II-II.Q14.A3.Rep1)

“If sometimes it is remitted, this is rather out of the mercy of God remitting, who cures even incurable sicknesses, than out of the remissibility of the sin.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, QII.Q8.A1)

ON THE MEANING OF THE TERM

The Opinions of the Fathers and Theologians: “Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Spirit.

For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Spirit is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matt 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matt 11:19) that He was a glutton, a wine drinker, and a friend of publicans: but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Spirit.

Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Spirit, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Spirit, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Spirit, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Spirit, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Spirit: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29, 30, where after Our Lord had said: But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, etc. the Evangelist adds, because they said: He hath an unclean spirit.

But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin against the Father; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin against the Son; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e., through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, Q. 78, AA. 1, 3), it is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

Now this may happen in two ways. First by reason of the very inclination of a vicious habit which we call malice, and, in this way, to sin through malice is not the same as to sin against the Holy Spirit. In another way it happens that by reason of contempt, that which might have prevented the choosing of evil, is rejected or removed; thus hope is removed by despair, and fear by presumption, and so on, as we shall explain further on (QQ. 20, 21). Now all these things which prevent the choosing of sin are effects of the Holy Spirit in us; so that, in this sense, to sin through malice is to sin against the Holy Spirit.” (ST.II-II.Q14.A1, cf., QDeMalo.Q3.A14, Rom.C2.L1.n187, Matt.C12.L2.n1025-1031, QII.Q8.A1)

The Opinion of St. Thomas: “To sin against what is attributed to the Holy Spirit is to sin out of a certain malice, just as sinning against the Father is sinning from weakness, and sinning against the Son is sinning from ignorance. Thus, we call it a sin against the Father when there is failure in what is attributed to the Father, namely, power, a sin against the Son when wisdom is lacking, seeing as this is attributed to the Son, and a sin against the Holy Spirit when something is put forward opposed to goodness, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

We can take the difference of these from what the Philosopher says where he shows that sin is committed in three ways: by ignorance, by passion, or by choice. Sin is committed by ignorance when one is ignorant of something, the knowledge of which would have impeded him from sin. Hence ignorance is in this case a cause of sin. And this is called a sin ‘against the Son.’ Next, one sins by passion, whether innate or borne out, when the judgment of reason is obstructed by the rush of passion. And this is properly to sin by weakness, which is a sin ‘against the Father.’ But a sin is committed by choice when a man deliberately clings to a sin, not as overcome by temptation, but—due to having a corrupt appetite—because the sin by itself pleases him. And this is to sin by malice, which is also to sin ‘against the Holy Spirit.’” (Sent.II.D43.Q1.A1)

The Sense of ‘By Deliberation’: “There are two ways it can happen for someone to choose an act of sin out of a certain deliberation that is not impelled by a passion. Either it is by putting something in the one choosing whereby he inclines to such an act as like himself. For in this way, everyone who has a habit of sin or virtue inclines to acts like his own habits because the natural appetite of a thing is for what is like itself. And this is the way in which anyone who has a habit of intemperance chooses an act of intemperance, and so forth for other sins.

In the other way, sin is chosen out of a certain deliberation when the will rejects that whereby man could be withdrawn from sin. For example, someone refrains from sin because of expecting a future reward. Therefore, if one voluntarily rejects hope of future reward or some such thing that withdrew him from sin, he will choose what will be pleasant to him in terms of the flesh as if it were essentially good, and thus will sin out of a certain malice.

Therefore, taking sin by choice in the first way, it does not name a determinate genus of sin, but instead a given circumstance of sin, namely, that the act proceed from a habit. This is possible in all genera of sins. But, in the second way, it indicates a specific sin that occurs by choice…sin against the Holy Spirit does not properly mean that which proceeds from choice in the first way, but instead that which proceeds from choice in the second way.” (Sent.II.D43.Q1.A2, cf., ST.II-II.Q14.A1 above, QDeMalo.Q2.A8.Rep4, QDeMalo.Q3.A14)

As Cause of Other Sins: “When one sins by choice in this second way, which is what the sin against the Holy Spirit properly indicates, there are considered to be two acts there. Both of these are a sin, and the first is the cause of the second. For example, by one act of the will someone regards eternal rewards with contempt, rejecting hope of them for himself, and in this he sins. Because he despairs of the reward, he falls into an act of fornication. This act comes to be in him from a certain choice due to the preceding act.” (Sent.II.D43.Q1.A2.Rep1)

NOTE: This explains the multiple accounts of the gospels…the Jews blasphemed the Holy Spirit in a number of different ways and at different times insofar as the malice that rejects the means of salvation can be distinguished, 1. On the part of the means rejected, and 2. On the part of the sins caused by the blasphemy.

THE SIX KINDS OF SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT

Clarification: St. Thomas’ position, as indicated above, is the “third position,” i.e., that a sin against the Holy Spirit is a determinate genus of sin (contrary to St. Augustine who thought it was a mere circumstance of sin, i.e., final impenitence in any sin) insofar as one may sin through a certain deliberate malice. Hence, these “species of sin” will be based on this determination or St. Thomas. These are, a. Despair, b. Presumption, c. Resistance of the Known Truth, d. Envy for a Brother’s Grace (cf., ST.II-II.Q36.A4.Rep2), e. Impenitence, f. Obstinacy.

Ordering of the Six Species of Sin: “The above species are fittingly assigned to the sin against the Holy Spirit taken in the third sense, because they are distinguished in respect of the removal or contempt of those things whereby a man can be prevented from sinning through choice. These things are either on the part of God’s judgment, or on the part of His gifts, or on the part of sin. For, by consideration of the Divine judgment, wherein justice is accompanied with mercy, man is hindered from sinning through choice, both by hope, arising from the consideration of the mercy that pardons sins and rewards good deeds, which hope is removed by despair; and by fear, arising from the consideration of the Divine justice that punishes sins, which fear is removed by presumption, when, namely, a man presumes that he can obtain glory without merits, or pardon without repentance.

God’s gifts whereby we are withdrawn from sin, are two: one is the acknowledgment of the truth, against which there is the resistance of the known truth, when, namely, a man resists the truth which he has acknowledged, in order to sin more freely: while the other is the assistance of inward grace, against which there is envy of a brother’s spiritual good, when, namely, a man is envious not only of his brother’s person, but also of the increase of Divine grace in the world.

On the part of sin, there are two things which may withdraw man therefrom: one is the inordinateness and shamefulness of the act, the consideration of which is wont to arouse man to repentance for the sin he has committed, and against this there is impenitence, not as denoting permanence in sin until death, in which sense it was taken above (for thus it would not be a special sin, but a circumstance of sin), but as denoting the purpose of not repenting. The other thing is the smallness or brevity of the good which is sought in sin, according to Rom. 6:21: What fruit had you therefore then in those things, of which you are now ashamed? The consideration of this is wont to prevent man’s will from being hardened in sin, and this is removed by obstinacy, whereby man hardens his purpose by clinging to sin. Of these two it is written (Jer 8:6): There is none that doth penance for his sin, saying: What have I done? as regards the first; and, They are all turned to their own course, as a horse rushing to the battle, as regards the second.” (ST.II-II.Q14.A2, cf., Rom.C2.L1.n188)

A More Lucid Explanation: “The Master…assigns six species of sin against the Holy Spirit: despair, presumption, impenitence, obstinacy, fighting against recognized truth, and envy of a brother’s grace. Hence they are said to sin against the Holy Spirit who sin against the things appropriated to the Holy Spirit. To the Father is appropriated power, to the Son wisdom, to the Holy Spirit goodness. Therefore that man is said to sin against the Father who sins out of weakness; that man is said to sin against the Son who sins out of ignorance; that man is said to sin against the Holy Spirit who sins out of malice.

But one should know that to sin out of malice is when someone sins voluntarily, which is from certain malice, and this in two ways: either because he has an inclination to the sin, or because he does not have an inclination. For when a man commits many sins, there remains in him from this a habit of sinning, and thus he sins by choice. Similarly, someone may sin because that by which he was restrained from sin is removed. Now, one is withheld from sin by the hope of eternal life. Hence he who does not hope for eternal life sins out of certain malice. Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness (Eph 4:19). Hence he who sins from an inclination sins against the Holy Spirit, namely from the fact that he withdraws from that which restrains him from sin.

Now, this comes about in six ways. For in God there are mercy and justice. From contempt of mercy there comes despair; from contempt of justice, presumption. Likewise on the part of aversion, because one turns himself toward some impermanent good, and from this there comes obstinacy. Likewise on the part of aversion, because one does not intend to be turned back to God, there comes impenitence. Likewise on the part of the remedy, namely on the part of hope and love, there comes about fighting against a recognized truth and envy of a brother’s love. These are the sins against the Holy Spirit.”

A Second Ordering: “But some take the distinction of these species as follows. They say that the sin against the Holy Spirit is specifically opposed to the grace of repentance, whereby there is forgiveness of sins. Now, for the forgiveness of sin there are some requirements on the part of the one forgiving, others on the part of the one being forgiven, and others on the part of that whereby there is forgiveness. On the part of the forgiver, two elements come together: mercy, and despair is against this, and justice, against which is presumption. On the part of the one forgiven, there are also two elements: the resolve not to sin, against which is obstinacy, and sorrow at sins committed, against which is impenitence. On the part of that whereby there is forgiveness, there are two elements: the faith of the Church, against which is impugning the known truth, and the grace given in the sacraments, and against this is envy at a brother’s grace.” (Sent.II.D43.Q1.A3)

THE FORGIVEABILITY OF SINS AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT

Note. This is the most difficult of all the questions surrounding the sins against the Holy Spirit. It seems as if the “plain sense of scripture” militates against any sort of non-Novatian account of the gospels, rendering forgiveness impossible. Either one has to bite the bullet with Augustine and say that Our Lord never insinuated that the Pharisees committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in order to retain the plain sense of “will never be forgiven” or they have to bit the bullet with the earlier fathers and deny the plain sense of “will never be forgiven” in order to hold that Our Lord did insinuate that the Pharisees committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The following solution eventually held by Catholic theologians is quite genius and fit to the tenor of the passage, while also helpfully accepting insights from the fathers, while not fully accepting their errors on particular matters.

Hence, in a number of different places, St. Thomas gives his succinct version of the answer (of which I have quoted a few at the beginning of this document), e.g., “in this life the free-will does indeed ever remain subject to change: yet sometimes it rejects that whereby…it can be turned to good. Hence considered in itself this sin is unpardonable, although God can pardon it.” (ST.II-II.Q14.A3.Rep3)

In another place, he writes “the sin against the Holy Spirit is not said to be unforgivable because it cannot be forgiven in this life, rather, it cannot be easily forgiven in this life. The reason for this difficulty is because the previously mentioned sin is directly contrary to the grace by which the sin is forgiven. Or else it is called unforgivable because it does not possess in itself the cause of forgiveness, it being committed from malice, unlike the sin that is committed from weakness or ignorance.” (QDeVer.Q24.A11.Rep7)

Here we can compare something like presumption to something like fornication. Both of these are sins, but presumption has a unique character insofar as it opposes directly and immediately the very means whereby it can be healed. Presumption directly excludes and opposes seeking forgiveness, whereas fornication does not have this same direct and immediate character. To give an analogy (cf., Sent.II.D43.Q1.A4.C.7) it would be like if you had two sickness, each of which was fatal and each of which could be healed by a certain oral medication, yet the first sickness in no way opposes the taking of the medication, yet the second one causes vomiting that expels the medication before it can take effect. Both the sicknesses (sins) have a cure (means of forgiveness), yet the second one directly opposes the means in causing the expulsion of the medication (not seeking forgiveness). Although, in either case, the incurable disease could be extraordinarily cured by the power of God.

The Sense According to the Various Solutions. “According to the various interpretations of the sin against the Holy Spirit, there are various ways in which it may be said that it cannot be forgiven. For if by the sin against the Holy Spirit we understand final impenitence, it is said to be unpardonable, since in no way is it pardoned: because the mortal sin wherein a man perseveres until death will not be forgiven in the life to come, since it was not remitted by repentance in this life.

According to the other two interpretations, it is said to be unpardonable, not as though it is nowise forgiven, but because, considered in itself, it deserves not to be pardoned: and this in two ways. First, as regards the punishment, since he that sins through ignorance or weakness, deserves less punishment, whereas he that sins through certain malice, can offer no excuse in alleviation of his punishment. Likewise those who blasphemed against the Son of Man before His Godhead was revealed, could have some excuse, on account of the weakness of the flesh which they perceived in Him, and hence, they deserved less punishment; whereas those who blasphemed against His very Godhead, by ascribing to the devil the works of the Holy Spirit, had no excuse in diminution of their punishment.

Wherefore, according to Chrysostom’s commentary (Hom. xlii in Matth.), the Jews are said not to be forgiven this sin, neither in this world nor in the world to come, because they were punished for it, both in the present life, through the Romans, and in the life to come, in the pains of hell. Thus also Athanasius adduces the example of their forefathers who, first of all, wrangled with Moses on account of the shortage of water and bread; and this the Lord bore with patience, because they were to be excused on account of the weakness of the flesh: but afterwards they sinned more grievously when, by ascribing to an idol the favors bestowed by God Who had brought them out of Egypt, they blasphemed, so to speak, against the Holy Spirit, saying (Exod 32:4): These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt. Therefore the Lord both inflicted temporal punishment on them, since there were slain on that day about three and twenty thousand men (Exod 32:28), and threatened them with punishment in the life to come, saying, (Exod 32:34): I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin . . . of theirs.

Second, this may be understood to refer to the guilt: thus a disease is said to be incurable in respect of the nature of the disease, which removes whatever might be a means of cure, as when it takes away the power of nature, or causes loathing for food and medicine, although God is able to cure such a disease. So too, the sin against the Holy Spirit is said to be unpardonable, by reason of its nature, insofar as it removes those things which are a means towards the pardon of sins. This does not, however, close the way of forgiveness and healing to an all-powerful and merciful God, Who, sometimes, by a miracle, so to speak, restores spiritual health to such men.” (ST.II-II.Q14.A3, cf., ST.III.Q86.A1.Rep2-3, Sent.II.D43.Q1.A4, QDeMalo.Q3.A15)