Talk:Continuationism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:00, 7 December 2019

Christianity: Theology Redirect‑class Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by theology work group (assessed as Low-importance).

What really Pentecostal Christians believe...

I'm a Pentecostal Christian myself, and many Pentecostals do not believe that speaking in tongues are necessarily a gift that accompanies baptism of the Holy Spirit. Although this creates the question of "Whats the difference between Charismatics and Pentecostals?", the main dividing is the time the groups separated from the mainline church.

Despite that the dividing line that appears within this article is the tongue speaking, the truth is that many Christians that believe in baptism of the Holy Spirit and do not think that speaking in tongues is a MUST still call themselves Pentecostal Christians.

Other articles attribute the difference between denominations as things other than whether tongues is essential, including the time of separation from the other denominations AND that Charismatics tend to stay within their own established and pre-made church societies.

Anyway, I feel the urge to change the article based on what I know and the knowledge on other articles (most coming from the article "Charismatic Movement".

Sorry for the rant,

ArchiveMaker 11:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I attend a Pentecostal church too (though not a member), and many of them don't have the gift of tongues, but they still call themselves pentecostals (all of the the major leaders do have it though). However, technically, by definition Pentecostals believe (or should) in the initial physical evidence of the Baptism of the H.S., which is speaking in tongues. By definition that's what a Pentecostal is (a reference to the day Pentecost in the book of Acts where all spoke in tongues, whereas "charismatic" comes from "charisma" : gift, or spiritual gift in this context (1 Cor.1:7)), at least by tradition (coming from the Asuza St. revival) and by majority.

Church of God in Christ (Doctrines) (see Baptism of the Holy Ghost)
Assemblies of God, 16 Fundamental Truths (See The Initial Physical Evidence of the baptism in Holy Spirit)
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, (see Church doctrines section, "Baptism of the Holy Spirit")

Avielh (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main objection I have is that the article, which should present both sides objectively, is entirely subjective and is more of an apologetic for the author's beliefs than a balanced source of information about both sides. That's in addition to any factual errors. This is a preaching piece.

Glimmertyme (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page isn't very neutral or accurate. It's also organized poorly, as the headings don't divide the information into appropriate sections. The Pentecostal and Charismatic differentiation is rather strange. I've never heard of that distinction being made in that way.

Brownbug (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cessationism?

Is there any good reason to have separate articles on Continuationism and Cessationism when they're both discussing exactly the same controversy? Please discuss this at Talk:Cessationism#Merger proposal. Chonak (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

At the end of the page, the Jon Ruthven references and links only go to a site offering the domain name for sale ! Should this be marked in some way, or should the links be simply deleted ? Darkman101 (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is a published scholarly book (and a pretty important book on the subject). The other is (if I'm not mistaken) a peer reviewed journal article. They should probably be formatted as such, instead of as an external link. I have the book, so I'll try to get the full citation. Also, I can attempt to find the article's citation. Ltwin (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence of bias in this entry

This article reads entirely as an apologetic for the continuisr view. All sources are from scripture directly...used only to support one view or secondary hermeneutics supporting only one side. The article consists almost ENTIRELY of one long argument in favor of continuationism. No effort is made to even appear objective. There are several statements constituting ORIGINAL RESEARCH. including assertions of the error of cessationism presented as facts. Regardless of ones faith, zeal, or personal conviction of one's inerrancy, THIS is not the forum to advocate for a given position or argue which side is "correct", no matter how good ones intentions. I had hoped to read a FACTUAL article as well as sources on both sides so I could further study this issue. Hearing just one side doesnt help anyone decide FOR THEMSELVES after hearing the facts..which is how this wiki is supposed to work...and makes it seem perhap the author wants to inappropriately advocate for one side only but is afraid his argumnts wont stand criticism. So henis not just advocating as he whould not be...he is also not even helping his case with even somewhat intelligent and thoughtful truthseekrs. If you feel people reading an ENCYCLOPEDIA need to hear your side you must present BOTH sides uing appropritly sourced references and no personal opinions or O.R.

71.58.117.159 (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)nick rien[reply]

Audience

I think we need to step back from this article and consider the question of audience. The statement of the doctrine here is not, in fact, a statement of the doctrine at all, but an argument for it. That does not belong on Wikipedia. Anyone finding this article and the cessationism article needs to know certain key facts:

1. What is it?
2. Where did it come from
3. (Perhaps) who thinks this
4. Where can they read more.

The assumption has to be that they may have no theological or even Christian background. This article just needs to present the unvarnished and verifiable facts. I think "The doctrine of continuationism" needs a complete rewrite. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I tried to bring this up years ago on the Cessationism talk page, but there were editors to that page that thought Wikipedia didn't need to be understandable to the average reader. Ltwin (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found and reviewed the discussion and then I reviewed how the page had changed since: not much! I have opened a talk section on that page too. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 The assumption has to be that they may have no theological or even Christian background. This article just needs to present the unvarnished and verifiable facts. I think "The doctrine of continuationism" needs a complete rewrite. -- [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 20:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 :Agree. I tried to bring this up years ago on the Cessationism talk page, but there were editors to that page that thought Wikipedia didn't need to be understandable to the average reader. [[User:Ltwin|Ltwin]] ([[User talk:Ltwin|talk]]) 01:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
+:: Thanks. I found and reviewed the discussion and then I reviewed how the page had changed since: not much! I have opened a talk section on that page too. -- [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 12:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)