Talk:Eternal sin

Errors in Article

In the section of Biblical Passages these verses do not belong: Hebrews 6:4-9 Hebrews 10:26-27 These verses both talked about the unsaved rejecting Jesus - which are both still forgivable while your alive on this Earth.

The unforgivable sin described in the Bible can be forgiven - if you ask. If you die in the unforgivable sin - you will go to Hell. No True Christian can commit this sin.

Also - SUICIDE in the Catholic Religion is supposedly unforgivable because there is no way to confess that sin after death (no way to reconcile with God). Which is false. If you have Jesus - it doesn't matter what sin you commit - your forgiven. Yes - you still should confess them to maintain a healthy relationship with God, but it's not required. You cannot lose your salvation - through any sin.

Also - Christianity is not Catholic, Mormon, Judaism, Jehovah's Witness.

Jareno18 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Justin Reno

Suicide was supposed by some to be unforgiven, but not "the" unforgivable sin because of an accident, viz. final impenitence. Yet the Saint Curé of Ars has settled the matter in, by speaking of an actual incident that had been revealed to him, reminding us that the suicide can actually repent in the intermediate time between his suicidal act and their subsequent death. Btw, in saying that a Christian can not sin unto losing his salvation, you're contradicting Our Lord (blessed be His Name) as in his words reported in Mt 7, 21-23.--77.4.118.194 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems someone added analysis to the Mark quote, inside of the quote. I'm gong to delete that now, as it does not belong there.

Rocknrollerguy37 June 19, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Actually the sentence you removed is part of the Biblical quote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that last sentence is Mark 3:30 actually. The quote is identified as being Mark 3:28-29, so either it has to be reidentified as 3:28-30 or the last sentence removed. Take your pick. I suggest the latter.Rocknrollerguy37 12:14, June 20, 2009

other Christian views

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)RKH

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)

As a Roman Catholic we were taught the unforgivable sin included rejecting your faith. If a believer with full knowledge of the faith rejects it and denies God, they commit the "unforgivable" sin, primarily since they no longer accept God then by definition they can't ask for forgiveness of sin. Therefore, becoming an atheist is an unforgivable sin. This does not apply to those raised without the faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjdon67 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What about in the Orthodox Christian Church? What do they teach Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is or consists of?--Splashen (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed a bunch of stuff

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)

Arminians & Wesleyans

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)

External link

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)

Bias

These "thorns and briers" bring to mind the "thorny ground" in the parable of the sower (Matthew 13) - people who fall away from what they once knew, choked by the pleasures of the world. A "sow that was washed returning to wallow in the mire" (2 Peter 2:22) was always a sow. Just as a tare was always a tare. Those not saved eventually show their true nature.

That citation is from the second to last paragraph of the article. The last sentence quoted above seems to me to be decidedly Deterministic and needs some rewording, such as, "An Deterministic interpretation of this scripture could mean that those not saved eventually show their true nature" or something less biased.

The Eternal Sin

I think the material here is somewhat vague. Other than that, it's pretty accurate. The introduction could be somewhat better, a tad bit clearer. More use of simplistic terms, or, better arrangement of the existing complex structures.

"Neutrality Disputed" warning

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.

Miguel de Servet 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the POV tag. Fatalis 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Others say

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)

That's impossible given the verses that they say that any sin can be forgiven. What Jesus said was "Anyone who does it won't be forgiven" and not "You people have done it so you won't be forgiven". They did think He was operating with the devil's power but even that wasn't unforgivable. 86.40.131.167 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Context

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)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1984/432_Beyond_Forgiveness_Blasphemy_Against_the_Spirit/

Added into the external linksGlorthac (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is scary

I'll never blaspheme against Spirit. I'm afraid of going to Hell.--Angel David (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This concept actually discourage honest and sincere discussion. Even among decent and true Christians, who have accepted God and Jesus Christ, we are not allowed to question the Holy Spirit, because immediately to question the Holy Spirit becomes an eternal sin! I once had a pastor who ended all discussions and period simply because of this. But please, blasphemy is not the intention. Free enquiry for the sake of understanding is. Out of the three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is the most difficult to understand and to accept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.61.226 (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of verses in the Bible and revelations not in the Bible where God or the Virgin Mary or someone else have said that all sins can be forgiven therefore the only unforgivable sin can only be to die not feeling sorry for your sins, the Blessed Trinity are equal but the role of the Holy Spirit is to help in getting one's sins forgiven through baptism and to assist a person's conscience. 86.41.69.44 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Eternal Sin"? Whose prefered term is that?

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)

I just made a disambiguation so whatever they type in, they get this link. Glorthac (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Version of the bible?

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)

What does this have to do with black metal? Seriously, I fail to see the connection. I'm not going to remove the category until someone gives me the okay, because it's not obviously vandalism and there may actually be a connection. 98.200.52.17 (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

POV in Section Universalism

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)

References

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)

We also need a section on general Protestant theology on the subject. I'll check some sources and try to get back to this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Greek

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)

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)

Re-thought Attitude? Be Careful

The best and most widely known example of someone committing the unpardonable sin is Judas Iscariot. Towards the beginning of Jesus's ministry, Jesus chose Judas to follow Him. And Judas accepted because he knew Jesus is the Messiah (then again, perhaps, Judas thought he would amass riches by following Jesus. Who knows?). Judas traveled with Jesus and heard Jesus's gospel, understood Jesus's gospel, and accepted Jesus's gospel as truth. Judas was by all sense of the modern term, a believer. I am to understand that it was Judas's rejection of the truth and ultimately, Judas's sin against the Holy Spirit that led to his demise. It is most likely not the same type of rejection found in Peter, who out of fear, told people that he, Peter, knew not the man Jesus who was arrested. Ronewirl (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In the book of Revelation, one will find the passage describing the names of the 12 written on the 12 foundations of the City. The idea that Judas Iscariot betrayed the Lord and then committed suicide does bring up the interesting question: Did Judas commit the unpardonable sin? Food for thought. Perhaps, the answer is "that's between God and Judas". Ronewirl (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All very interesting. Eternal Sin is one of those topics that invites a lot of speculation, and a whole variety of different views. However we should stick to discussing stuff that is relevant to writing an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alas,....in a way, I'm trying to bring to this discussion forum an illustrative point of the subject at hand. For example, American Southern Baptists believe in the old saying "Once saved, always saved". By presenting the case of Judas Iscariot, could his example be indeed the explanation for or the reason behind this old saying? Another example to explain what it means to commit the unpardonable sin: the Pharisees who made accusations against Jesus and blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. Apparently (although I don't understand how there could be a distinct difference) there is a difference between the case of Judas Iscariot and the case of the biblical Pharisees. Anyone?????.....Ronewirl (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Once saved, always saved" (or Perseverance of the saints) is only partly related to the question of eternal sin. A Christian does not have to commit an 'eternal sin' to lose their salvation (of you believe such to be possible); all that is required is that they renounce their faith and then their ordinary sins are unpardoned.

I'm not sure that Judas is the best example here. Some consider he committed an eternal sin, but in general that is considered due to his having committed suicide, rather than his better-known betrayal of Jesus. The betrayal and killing of Jesus is not usually viewed as unpardonable of itself; Jesus himself asks for forgiveness for his killers, and Peter's betrayal is clearly fogiven. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Holy Bible defines eternal sin or unpardonable sin as "sin against the Holy Spirit", such as what took place during Jesus's time when the Pharisees blashemed against the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 12:31,32 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man [Jesus], it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come." Those words lead one to think that a person can lose his/her salvation in this age and in the age to come. Ronewirl (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, but people do interpret those words differently, as the article discusses. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Angels

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)

Murder

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)

Maybe a confusion with the sins crying to heaven. --77.4.118.194 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a forum

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)

I John 5: 16, 17

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)

The Catholic view is that this is where the doctrine of mortal sin originates, I'm not sure what the protestant view is but probably that sin (not aItalic text sin) unto death is very bad. 86.41.69.44 (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Explaining my edit

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 [1] ). Kansan (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

According to TVtropes Mortal Event Horizon

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eternal sin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Could someone please work on the definition of sin in this article? Sins of omission are completely overlooked which leads to some confusion of the author's main thesis.

Last edited at 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Change the page name to Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

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)

Error in the "Jewish doctrine" section

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)

Xuinkrbin., 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)

Error

"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)

The will of God 2603:9000:ED00:85BE:964C:9A4B:EAD5:C543 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)