Trinitarian equality & blaspheme against the Spirit

[Magdalenbrother]

Jesus says that whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven. But whoever blasphemes against the Father or the Son can expect forgiveness.

Marvellous. I would like Trinitarians to tell me how this fits with their theory that the triune God is absolutely one and composed of perfectly equal hypostases.If that were true, one would expect a blaspheme against the third hypostasis to affect also the others, but apparently this is not the case.

Why?

By the way, I really don't believe this saying is genuine. I think what Jesus said is simply that blaspheming against the Sipit of God was an unforgivable sin period. And by "Holy Spirit", he meant God in his aspect of indwelling power. God=Holy Spirit. God is Spirit says "John". The Lord is the Spirit says Paul. The Holy Spirit is not a distinct "individual"(quotes because I know that according to the theory the persons in the trinity are not individuals), it is God acting in the world, particularly in man's heart, from which man's thoughts and words come. Spirit is also the essence of God. God is a spirit. We are also spirits but in our present condition we have a gross, mortal body whereas God has no body.

But some obscure scribe probably found that here was a golden opportunity to add a trinitarian note in a Gospel which is singularly devoid of references to the Nicean God. Unfortunately this doctrinaire pen-pusher didn't realize that it doesn't make much sense to say that one can insult the Father and the Son but not the Holy Spirit. Besides, didn't Jesus die for all our sins according to Saul of Tarsus? How come this sin is unforgivable? Did Jesus fail to provide enough blood to save this special category of blasphemers?

I've heard some people argue that this sin is an obstinate refusal to accept God's love and that this is ultimately the reason why it cannot be forgiven. This explanation is untenable for the simple reason that what Jesus is talking about here is very specific: it is not just a sin against the Spirit, it is a blaspheme, something one says. So pride has nothing to do with it.

[Piebald]

Why?

Because since the Father, Son, and Spirit have different roles "blaspheming" one of them while they perform this role places them outside the realm of forgiveness?

But some obscure scribe probably found that here was a golden opportunity to add a trinitarian note in a Gospel which is singularly devoid of references to the Nicean God

:bologna:

[guacamole]

Best. Custom. Smiley. Ever.

The big logical leap in MB's post is that because circumstances surrounding one member of the godhead are different they are therefore unequal. Equality does not equate with uniformity.


fwiw
guac.

[Athanasius]

The big logical leap in MB's post is that because circumstances surrounding one member of the godhead are different they are therefore unequal. Equality does not equate with uniformity.


Yes, my wife an I are equal in that we are both fully human, both made in the image of God, and both of equal worth in that God gave his Son for both of us. But we are not uniform in circumstance or roles, and therefore a statement made to her might be less offensive than if it were made to me. For instance, if you told her, "You are such a whoose! " it might hardly bother her. But if you said it to me, the words would not go down so well.

What did Jesus mean by this statement regarding blasphemy? Satan has so often used ignorant men who brashly speak of things they do not understand, to bring condemnation on people by distorting this verse. My heart goes out to those who have been mentally tortured because they have misunderstood this verse.

One could have mistakenly slandered the Son in his human form. God is willing to overlook and forgive unintentional blasphemy, as He did with the apostle Paul. So blasphemy against the Son could be forgiven.

But in the face of undisputed miracles performed by the Spirit of God, it was highly unlikely that one would have mistakenly slandered Him. To do so intentionally was an act of ultimate rejection of, and rebellion against God in the face of very clear evidence. This was a premeditated and intentional sin involving spoken words (rather than involuntary or hasty thoughts), not an accidental or unintentional sin. It was not just an act of rejection of God, but an act of making one's self an intentional enemy of the Holy spirit by slandering Him. As such, it was an evidence of a heart hardened beyond repentance. And if one will not repent, He cannot be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come.

If a man does repent of something He has said, then he has not blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and can find forgiveness, because

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

What Jesus said does not invalidate this verse, for all of His words are true, including those He has spoken through his apostles and prophets. A man who has actually committed this sin will not repent, and will not confess His sin. He will not care enough about it to do so.

[Athanasius]

Matthew 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

The Greek word translated "blasphemy" here is the word blasphemia, and it means to slander, speal evil of, or rail against someone. This involves the intent of the heart. I believe that a person who does this unintentionally, or without premeditation may find forgiveness if he genuinely repents, because he has not spoken the words with intent against (Greek kata, a preposition indicating directional orientation) the Holy Spirit.


I Timothy 1:12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; 13 Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

It seems to me that this sin against the Holy Spirit must include not only an evil and purposeful intent of heart, but also spoken words, as Jesus further explained in the next verse:

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

One canot slander another with the intent of damaging His reputation without actually speaking words against him in some way.

My intent here is not to make light of this sin or to cause anyone to be less fearful of commiting it, for we must dilligently avoid even skirting near it. But I do want to help those who have been needlessy tortured regarding this verse to realize what I think is the true nature of this sin.

[Magdalenbrother]

One could have mistakenly slandered the Son in his human form. God is willing to overlook and forgive unintentional blasphemy, as He did with the apostle Paul. So blasphemy against the Son could be forgiven.

Wonderful, your reference to Paul helps me understand why blasphemy against the son is forgivable.

Your explanations make no sense, sirs. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in glory and dignity. Therefore whatever affects one affects the others. If I abuse your wife, this will affect you, unless of course you don't love her at all. And your wife and you are much less united than the so-called persons of the Trinity.

You speak about different roles: good! This means that the "persons" are individuals after all.

You see, no matter what you say, you cannot avoid tritheism.

[guacamole]

Your explanations make no sense, sirs. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal in glory and dignity. Therefore whatever affects one affects the others. If I abuse your wife, this will affect you, unless of course you don't love her at all. And your wife and you are much less united than the so-called persons of the Trinity.


Now you're adding a whole new vegetable to the stew. The discussion isn't about wether something that affects one (granting that God is affected by us, which isn't certain) affects them all. The argument is about wether or not equality necessitates uniformity. Logically, it does not follow that individuals with equal standing must be uniform. Beneath the law a police officer and I are both clients and citizens of the state. We are equal with respect to our citizenship, however we have certain different rights and priviliges to us according to our role in the state. The fact that we are equal beneath the law does not mean that we need to even approach uniformity. Likewise, it is possible for the circumstances surround blasphemy to be different for the various persons of the trinity. That does not mean that they are unequal, only that they are not uniform in that respect.


You speak about different roles: good! This means that the "persons" are individuals after all.

You see, no matter what you say, you cannot avoid tritheism.

That's a matter of definitions. The trinitarian will always affirm three persons (or as the famous hymn puts it "God in three persons, blessed trinity"). The non-trinitarian, always wanting to put an adverse spin on the situation, will assert tritheism. Shrug. It really don't matter what you think.

fwiw
guac.