Talk:Eternal sin: Difference between revisions
The Eternal Sin |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Example== |
==Example== |
||
Exactly how do you commit this sin? Can it be more specific? Is it even possible? Not that I want to. . . [[User:4.240.90.184|4.240.90.184]] 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
Exactly how do you commit this sin? Can it be more specific? Is it even possible? Not that I want to. . . [[User:4.240.90.184|4.240.90.184]] 04:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
By resisting the Holy Spirit to the point when your conscience breaks down. The process is described [http://www.totalblasphemy.com here]. This is my own testimony, and while it may appear extreme, the events recorded are exactly as I experienced them. |
|||
==Arminians & Wesleyans== |
==Arminians & Wesleyans== |
||
Revision as of 00:39, 11 January 2007
Example
Exactly how do you commit this sin? Can it be more specific? Is it even possible? Not that I want to. . . 4.240.90.184 04:29, 16 March 2006 (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.
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.