Talk:Eternal sin

message: What is the theological basis for the belief that suicide is an unforgivable sin? All of the Christians I know (a number of Catholics, and some evangelicals of various stripes) are adamant that this is so (and express surprise when I tell them that Christ himself identified another as the biggie). How is it that this became became such a pervasive concept? 165.91.64.111 (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea is that a suicide has no opportunity to repent, since he's dead. The idea that suicide = automatic Hell isn't Catholic doctrine, though; for one thing, a mortal sin requires 'full consent of the will', and many (probably most) people who commit suicide have mental problems which would prevent such. Vultur (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: other Christian views

message: I re-arranged everything, deleted the worthless junk, etc. I left Calvinism mostly unchanged, it's a mess, but should be kept because it is very theologically deep. Somebody else is going to have to gather where the information came from though. Glorthac (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixed a bunch of stuff

message: I removed the material about these groups which was not only inaccurate, but cited a source or two which is far from representative of what these groups believe.  KHM03 15:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Arminians & Wesleyans

message: Define an eternal sin as prescribed by the bible ... the bible doesn't really deal in absolutes as far as my interpretation goes.
Lol, I interpret the Bible as having absolutely no subjective truths, but only objective ones.Glorthac (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External link

message: The main article has a "Neutrality Disputed" warning, which resends to the Talk page. Although I can see various criticism on the quality of the main article, I cannot detect any objection to its ""Neutrality" (NPOV). 
My only objection is that there is no reference, throughout the main article, to the cognate notion of Mortal sin. 
I propose therefore to: 
Add cross-links through out both articles (Eternal sin and Mortal sin, including the respective “See also” sections ) 
Remove the "Neutrality Disputed" warning from the Eternal sin main article.
</ol>
Miguel de Servet 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed the POV tag. Fatalis 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Neutrality Disputed" warning 

message: Well other preachers say that it is easy to commit this sin, even by saying that someone who is operating under the power of the Holy Ghost is not, commits the sin. Also uttering any bad words towards the Holy Spirit, commits the sin.--Fr3nZi3 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Others say

message: John Piper goes into excellent detail about the context of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If anyone has not taken a look at it, please do. I honestly believe John Piper has pretty much got the meaning of this unique sin. It needs to be taken into context as Jesus never said the Pharisees ever committed it. And from the opinions of other's, they seem to agree. There is an audio version at this page as well if you won't want to read it. Hellogoodsir 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: I'll never blaspheme against Spirit. I'm afraid of going to Hell.--Angel David (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good choice. But you should be aware that hardly anyone considers the mere speaking of blasphemous words against the HS to be an eternal sin. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This is scary

message: Why is this concept, more often referred to as "the Unpardonable Sin" being redirected to a much lesser used appellation "Eternal Sin"?  Even "unforgivable sin" is used more often than is "Eternal Sin"...  Google all three and you'll see.  Seems to me that there is something out of joint when a concept is developed in Wikipedia under a minority terminology with the major term/terms being mere redirects.
"Eternal Sin" seems to be a modern locution, it appears in the New International Version of the Bible, Mark 3:28-29...  But it is NOT true to the original which speaks of "eternal condemnation" or "eternal damnation"...  This modern aversion to the concept of condemnation/damnation is confusing things.  This is NOT scholarship to use suspect "translations"...  
Looking back in history, someone started this as "Eternal Sin"; then "Unforgivable Sin" was added; and then I added the most prevalent appellation "the Unpardonable Sin" back in 2005...  Without my theological library, I can't prove my contention that "Eternal Sin" is a modernist reinterpretation of biblical text, but the facts that I point out regarding the prevalence of other, preferred terms for "blaspheming against the Holy Spirit" would seem to suggest that things would better reflect the state of things if the article were re-named and re-worked to reflect those facts.
Anyone else have thoughts?
Emyth (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eternal Sin"? Whose prefered term is that?

message: Is there a reason why such an old translation of the bible is used in this page? As a modern and literate christian I find it difficult to understand, so I'm not sure that this page will be of much help to the average person. If you agree then could someone please update it (I don't want to do so until people agree, and also don't know how to yet!!). Thanks, Theteapot (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version of the bible? 

message: From a doctrinal view, they take a more liberal approach toward the issue of salvation, under the belief that God is both loving and forgiving —and that the hardline view is at odds with the principles of faith, even when applied to the sinner and the question of eternal sin.
"hardline"<sp> is "impartial tone" or at least "insinuation". One sect (in no demeaning term) cannot become the "normal", and all others the "hard line".
: It doesn't say "normal", it just says "more liberal". I see no partiality. Maybe "hardline" should be changed to "more conservative" or something like that, though.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.250.65 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Section  Universalism 

message: There is a bad lack of references here. The main culprit is the Calvinism section, which is long, full of weasel quotes ("some say") and with but a single reference. Quotes of the Bible don't count, since non-Calvinist Christians believe the same Bible but interpret it differently. Nor does the passage clearly explain how the Calvinist view differs from the general. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Would it be accurate to post the details regarding the original Greek of the New Testament verses?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.31.213 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should only quote the Greek if it is absolutely necessary to explain something. You should be aware that quotes from primary sources (including the Bible) are generally discouraged, and the section that does that here is probably going to be rewritten very soon. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek 

message: I removed a section about Angels committing eternal sins as it had no references to support it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Angels

message: I removed a comment about murder being unforgiveable, as that simply isn't the case. This article is about the Christian concept, and in Christianity murder is not unforgiveable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a confusion with the sins crying to heaven. --77.4.118.194 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder 

message: Just a reminder to all that this talk page, and Wikipedia in general, is not a forum for general discussion of this subject. Discussion here is specifically for improvement of the article Eternal sin, its structure and references. Elizium23 (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a forum

message: I was wondering if the following verses should be added to the section that is quoting the New Testament.
I John 5:16, 17 (NASB) 16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
Is it possible that the author was refering to the "eternal" or "unpardonable" sin here? ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.116.205.162 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I John 5: 16, 17 

message: I changed the wording introducing the listing the relevant scriptural passages so that it says that the passages are "frequently interpreted" as referring to the unforgivable sin, because not all scholars agree that some of these passages refer to it. For example, many scholars do not believe that Hebrews 6:4-6 refers to it (for example, this scholarly article  ). Kansan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explaining my edit 

message: Complete Monsters here commit eternal sins without such redemption after they die. http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Complete_Monster  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.142.94 (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  According to TVtropes Mortal Event Horizon 

message: Substituted at 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Eternal sin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201025815/http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746357&ct=5571239 to http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=4746357&ct=5571239
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Change the page name to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
Change the page name to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 191.254.134.253 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the page name to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit 

message: This section is self-contradictory; it says "no sin can overcome forgiveness" and then quotes an example of unforgivable sin. Both cannot be correct because, if no sin can overcome forgiveness, every sin can be forgiven; therefore, a quotation which illustrates an unforgivable sin disproves the presumption.
Xuinkrbin. (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , no, the Reform rabbinical interpretation is given immediately after the Scripture passage, which puts it in the proper perspective and reinforces the teaching already explained. Elizium23 (talk) 04:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the "Jewish doctrine" section 

message: "Shirk includes polytheism, such as believing Jesus is God"
A person believing Jesus is God is not polytheism. Polytheism is the belief in many Gods. In the Hebrew Religion, The God of Abram is One God in three persons, commonly referred to a a Trinitarian God. The article should clarify that from an Islamic perspective, "a muslim may not believe there is any god but Allah and may not believe in 
any other gods". The article is better stated as such, or similarly, rather than mentioning Jesus related to polytheism. Mentioning Jesus makes the sentence appear biased or singling out Jesus with no reference. It is unlikely that a muslim would believe both Allah and Jesus to be god, simultaneously, so the reference to Jesus has no context. Daedelusrevisted (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error