Talk:Pentecostalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archived discussions from 8 January 2009 through 2015. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Overhaul

This whole article needs a major overhaul. Where are these ridiculous references coming from? Mickey Mouse Publishing House? Stick to secular mainstream publishers when citing sources. Agciorg (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What specific references are you referring to? Ltwin (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

March 17 recent edit

This prhase "(although like Wesley they lean toward a modified form of baptismal regeneration)" was added under the beliefs section. Can an explanation of this be given. What is the modified baptismal regeneration and how is it like Wesley? Ltwin (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected this, and added a reference to one of the more notable Oneness Pentecostal theologians of our time (David Bernard) on the subject. Some might argue that Dr. Bernard is engaging in semantics by denying the concept of "Baptismal Regeneration" in his book (which is why I removed it from this article), when, according to many folks' understanding on that subject (mine included), one could legitimately use that term to describe our position. However, when one reads his words on the subject, his reluctance to use that term is completely understandable, and I agree with him in the context he presents. I figured that the best way to deal with it was to reword this portion of the article as I did here. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Communion

Someone placed in the area dealing with Communion "This practice arises from the understanding that the last supper was a Seder service and as "no product of fermentation" could have been allowed in a Jewish house during Passover Exodus 12:19, accurate reenactment requires a "wine" which is not a product of fermentation (i.e. without leaven)." Is there a source that this is the reason why fermented wine is used? The Bible verse alone proves nothing. Ltwin (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the someone. ;) I added a cite to a denominational position paper regarding the consumption of Alcohol and I believe Ltwin and I agree that it suffices. But further material documenting this connection would be appreciated. I know it's out there but locating it can be obscure because it is a teaching that is common in the Pentecostal movement but has been passed orally in sermons and Sunday School Lessons, and yes position papers, rather than official Statements of Faith. Any help locating sources would be appreciated both for the wiki and others. ;P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.48.224 (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mwest

I am not so sure it was wine exactly that was used for the Last supper, because the bible specificly used the word "grapes". Now i realize that is how wine is made but wouldnt that be a more updated version of Grape Juice?

Are you asking whether wine is an updated form of Grape Juice? I'm not sure where you're going with this . . . Mitchell Powell (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostalism

I "demoted" the Oneness section because it is a sub-section directly inside the sub-section Overview and not a sub-section of Beliefs. Oneness Pentecostalism is not a doctrine unto itself. Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, while I think the information on Oneness Pentecostalism is better than it has been, this paragraph could use some slight stylistic changes or it may need to be placed in the Oneness Pentecostalism article:

"Whereas Arius taught that the Son was a created being, utterly separate from the Father, Oneness Pentecostals teach that the Son is the Father united to human flesh. According to Oneness teaching, the Son was begotten not eternally, as Trinitarians assert, but at a specific moment in time, as they interpret Hebrews 1:5. Arius, on the other hand, completely separated the Son from the Father, which Oneness believers do not do. For them, the Son is the Father incarnate, which is something Arius did not believe. On the other hand, Dr. David Bernard, indicates in his book The Oneness of God that Modalistic Monarchianism and Oneness are essentially one and the same, so long as one does not understand Modalism to be the same as Patripassianism, i.e. that the Father suffered and died in the person of Jesus Christ. Chapter 10 of The Oneness of God explains the relationship of Modalistic Monarchianism to the modern Oneness teaching, as does an appended research paper by the same author, entitled "Modalistic Monarchianism: Oneness in Early Church History."[9]"

The first problem I have is that Dr. Bernard is mentioned in text. I have nothing against him being cited, I think as a Oneness Pentecostal theologian he is perfect for citing information; however, if the information is cited why is there any need to mention the author and the book in text of the article? I realize there are other places in the article where this occurs and I will fix that, but I wanted to see what other editors felt. Also, this is my opinion and I'm trying to see what others think, to me this paragraph may actually go into too much detail about the finer points of theology which might belong more at the Oneness Pentecostalism article. As this is for all of Pentecostalism I'm attempting to use the summary style, linking to articles which go into more depth. I realize all articles aren't up to great standards but I also realize that too much information can clutter an article. I'm not taking any action on this, just want to see what others think? Ltwin (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed in article text about the authors of a citation from the Denominations and adherents section. I was going to do the same in the Changes in roles of women section, but as it was a qoute and realizing that its not proper form to have a stand alone qoute I've left that as it is. My reasons for preferring this is because I guess I am a minimalist and I think the less unnecessary detail, such as an author's name and name of a book when it is already mentioned in the citation given, allows for a more easy read and comprehension by the reader. In my experience on Wikipedia I have tried to read through articles loaded down with much detail that it was very hard to comprehend what was important about the subject. Ltwin (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind about what I wrote above. I realize mentioning of a source's name is sometimes necessary. I have made a slight stylistic change to the paragraph but it looks fine to me now. Ltwin (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have examined your changes to the Oneness Pentecostal paragraphs, and they are fine by me. I would not like to see the information removed entirely, since Oneness doctrine on such basic subjects as the Godhead and the necessity of baptism for salvation differs rather sharply from the rest of Pentecostalism (not to mention the rest of Christianity); and I feel there should be at least a cursory mention of these things in a general article on Pentecostalism, with more detailed treatments left to other appropriate articles. In my opinion, at least, what we have here now seems to suffice for that. What does everyone else think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Current issues needing work

I would like to get this article to good article status (WP:GA). The main problem I see is that there is still a substantial amount of the article unsourced or poorly sourced. Also the Women section is extremely out of proportion to the rest of the article. We either need to make the rest of the History sections longer, which with Wikipedia's article size guidelines may not be the best way to go, or we need to prune some of the excess minutae (spelling?) away. There are some important holes that need to be filled. Ltwin (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to this list:

1. Work on Women section
2. Only classical denominations are mentioned, but there are important groups outside of classical Pentecostalism
3. No mention of Prosperity Gospel
4. We need to figure out what to do with that list of Pentecostal leaders, lists in articles are undesirable. We need to find a way to incorporate Pentecostal leaders into the article text. Or just convert the list into paragraphs in their own right, but a paragraph just talking about individuals might look odd.
5. And of course need better sourcing.

One could say that the usage of Pentecostal leaders use the doctrine of Proverbs, Matt, Mark, Luke and 1st John to aquire some points on the "Working of Women"-mwest

Finished Work controversy and alignment with Evangelicalism

Also, it has come to my attention that when this article talks about Pentecostal history 2 major things are missing: the Finished Work controversy and Pentecostalism's growing association and some might call amalgamation with Evangelicalism (at least with American Pentecostalism). The Finished Work controversy is very important, as I've recently discovered. It was the first doctrinal dispute within the movement and I believe actually contributed to the deepened division between mainstream and Oneness groups. It also in some ways paved the way for relations between Pents. and Evangelicals. This relationship is changing Pentecostalism and, depending on who you ask, is either good, bad, or both for Pentecostalism. Some see the identification with Evangelicalism as blurring and deemphasizing Pentecostal distincives and in the long run weakining the movement. So we definitely need to include these in the history section. Should the Finished Work controversy have its own article? Ltwin (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Introduction

Another editor and I had a dispute as to whether the Assemblies of God were Holiness or Higher Life. We both cited sources and in the end we came to a compromise saying it was influenced by both movements. So, while I like your edits Drrosenior this one part concerns me, as you've seemed to have put the AG squarely in the Higher Life camp. Is this entirely accurate? But on the whole I like your edits as I had been wanting more info on the Finished Work controversy to be in this article, but didn't have enough knowledge to place it in there. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have issue with the opening statement that implies that Pentecost is somehow a subset of the Charismatic movement. Pentecost predates Charismatic by 60 years, and most pentecostal denominations rejected the charismatic movement on numerous grounds, scriptural and otherwise. Mmlj4 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mmlj4. The word "charismatic" in the first sentence does not link to the Charismatic movement article. It links to the Charismatic Christianity article which discusses all the continuationist elements of Christianity: the Pentecostal Movement, the Charismatic Movement, and the Neo-Charismatic movement. The word charismatic in this sense simply means that Pentecostalism is part of a larger part of Christianity that accepts and emphasizes the charismata.

However, as a Pentecostal myself, I can understand how the terms can be confusing and that many Pentecostals do not wish to be considered part of the Charismatic movement. I will move the word charismatic from the first sentence and try to explain how Pentecostals relate to other Charismatic Christians lower in the introduction. Ltwin (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Doctrinal clarification

I am confused as to whether Finished Work and Higher Life or the same or similar, or is Higher Life more closer to the Wesleyan Holiness view? The article states in the introduction "Higher Life, (also known as 'Baptistic' or 'Finished Work' Pentecostals)". Can this be clarified in that article's introduction? Is Higher Life the same as Finished Work? Also, the Pentecostalism article seems to contradict itself. In the Holiness and Higher Life Pentecostalism section it says "The Wesleyan-Holiness orientation was the universal position in the early days of Pentecostalism espousing a three-fold process of conversion, progressive sanctification, and baptism in the Holy Spirit.[7]" but later in the Finished Work section it says "as sanctification is viewed as progressive rather than instantaneous." So which position believes in progressive sanctification and if both do than what is the difference between them? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity vs. Category:Pentecostalism

Category:Pentecostalism is itself a category within Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper names

I am in the process (I am not done yet) of changing terms like "pentecostals" and "charismatics" to lower case. They are not proper names, but are terms to describe a certain type of Christian. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The website http://www.religionwriters.com/tools-resources/religionstylebook/stylep#Pentecostalism does not capitalize charismatic, but does Pentecostal. Please leave feedback. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pentecostalism is a movement like Catholicism or Methodism. The capitalization is the same whether it is Pentecostalism, Pentecostal movement, or Pentecostal. I have reverted your edits as many of the other terms you changed should have been capitalized too. Ltwin (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ltwin on this. The terms that were de-capitalized are all proper names of specific theological or historical movements, doctrines, etc. "Oneness Pentecostalism", for instance, is the proper name of a specific expression of Pentecostalism with a unique history, doctrines, leadership, etc. These terms should not have been "lower-cased" in this manner. - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) seems

I am surpised that you select ideology over accuracy. Reverting any and all corrections to defend capitalzation of "Pentecostal" seems like a careless attempt at editing, and demeans this site. How about those like: "the term "Evangelical" does not equal Fundamentalist Christianity".

There is no basis to capitalize words like evangelical and fundamentalist. I suggest that you start with your editing of this article by correcting these and other clear errors. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "Evangelical" refers to a multiplicity of denominations and movements, including Pentecostalism, but also incorporating Baptists, certain kinds of Methodists, Church of Christ, and others--all of whom have very different beliefs. Pentecostalism is a more restrictive term, which while still encompassing different denominations, is much more restrictive in what it embraces (belief-wise and historically) than "Evangelical". I understand what you are trying to do here, and I respect it, but I still don't think de-capitalizing all of these terms is correct. "Pentecostal" has been capitalized in many different usages of the term; run a search engine check, and you'll see what I mean. Perhaps some of these terms DO need to be lower-cased, but definitely not all of them. You accuse me of carelessness, but I was not the one who went through and lower-cased all kinds of terms ("Oneness Pentecostalism") that should have been left capitalized in the first place. I have done very little work on this particular article, but I will look into what you mention; my reversion was to restore the article to its original form (prior to your blanket changes), so that your objections can be looked at (and they will be!). You raise a valid point with some of what you mention, but not necessarily everything. Best wishes, - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was I who reverted the edits originally, and I agree all the terms don't need to be capitalized. However, as I didn't make a blanket change in capitalization, I felt it wasn't my responsibility to go through and choose which terms legitimately should have been capitalized and which should have been lowercased. If there are corrections that need to be made then they shoudl be made, however, we shouldn't lowercase terms which any check on google would show is consistently capitalized. Ltwin (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so, jumping into the fray...when we have these disagreements of opinion on Wikipedia, we must try to seek a consensus; I see here a number of issues, therefore, let us ennumerate them and case our !votes. If we can agree to some of the edits, we can move forward from there; anything remaining and controversial can be discussed further at length. In the interests of progress, I therefore ask you all to Approve or Disapprove of the following suggested edits;

1. Proposal to change "Pentecostalism" to "pentecostalism" (except where it is at the beginning of a sentence; including section headings)

'Approve'  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) This refers to a specific religious movement, and should be capitalized, especially given the # of times it's capitalized on other websites, as Ltwin has observed, and any search-engine search will confirm!

Disapprove - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) As stated above, this is a distinct religious movement like Methodism or Catholicism and any check on google will show it overwhelmingly capitalized.

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) A description, not a movement'

2. Proposal to change "Evangeli..." to "evangeli..." - this occurs in the following segments;

• "differs significantly from that of most other Pentecostal and Evangelical factions."
• "most Evangelicals and even most other Pentecostals."
• "more-traditional Evangelical community"
• "Jack Coe (1918–56) Healing Tent Evangelist of the 1950s"
• "William M. Branham (1909–65) Healing Evangelists"
• "Aimee Semple McPherson (1890–1944) American Female Evangelist"
• "Oral Roberts (b.1918) Healing Tent Evangelist"

(note, there are already uses of the word without capitalization in the article; this would make it more consistent)

Approve  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(#'s 1-3): Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Are German "Evangelical Lutherans" the same, theologically, as American Protestant "Evangelicals?" I think not.

(#'s 4-7): Approve - - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) These are clearly instances where lower-case lettering should be used.

Approve Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The wikipedia article on Evangelicalism capitalizes "Evangelical" when referring to an adherent of Evangelical Christianity. The word "evangelist" is a religious title and should not be capitalized. Saying all that, in many sources I've looked at evangelical is not usually capitalized.

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Agree with statement by Chzz

3. Change from "Wesleyan Holiness, also known as Holiness-Pentecostalism, and Higher Life. " to "Wesleyan holiness, also and higher life."

Approve  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Wesleyan": Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Wesleyan" is the proper name of a specific religious/historical movement; it should remain capitalized.

"Holiness": Approve - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Here, "holiness" seems to be used more in a general sense, rather than the proper name of a specific theological movement within Wesleyanism.

"Higher Life": Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Higher Life" refers to a specific theological movement within Wesleyanism, and as such, should remain capitalized.

Approve: Wesleyan holiness - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disapprove: Higher Life - Higher Life movement is a specific movement.

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Wesleyan is always capitalized. (The

Wesleyan movement was never know as Holiness-Pentecostalism)

Yes, you are correct. That reference to Holiness-Pentecostalism has been removed.Ltwin (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Change "Wesleyan Holiness preachers taught that this" to "Wesleyan holiness preachers taught that this"

Approve  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approve - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Since this seems to be a case of the use of "holiness" in some more general sense, I agree. But if this were to refers to a specific movement within Wesleyanism (and I don't think this is the case here), it should remain capitalized.

Approve - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Agree with avor.

5. Change "Higher Life" to "higher life" in section name and other instances

Approve  Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) As above, this is the proper name of a specific theological movement within Wesleyanism.

Disapprove - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) This as capitalized pushes the envelop for the rules of capitalization.

6. Change "Wesleyan Holiness" "wesleyan holiness"

"Wesleyan": Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) "Wesleyan" is still the proper name of a formal religious movement.

"Holiness": Approve - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) As above, this is a more general term.

Disapprove - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) per Wesleyan should be capitalized.

Disapprove/Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Wesleyan holiness

7. Change "Higher Life" to "higher life"

Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Already covered once, above.

Disapprove - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Description of a teaching, not a movement as such

8. Change "Monisitc" to "monisitc"

Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Again, a proper name of a specific religious "heresy" (if I understand correctly, here; I could be wrong!).

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) No reason to capitalize

9.Change "Oneness" to "oneness" in the phrase "According to Oneness teaching"

Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Oneness Pentecostalism, again, is a specific doctrinal movement within Pentecostalism, and should retain capitalization as the proper name of that movement.

Disapprove - Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Again, no clear reason for capitalization

10. Change "Modalistic Monarchianism" to "modalistic monarchianism"

"Modalistic": Approve, conditionally - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Here, "modalistic" is used more as an adjective, if I understand its usage here correctly, than a noun. However, if it forms part of the proper, historical name of this "heresy", it should remain capitalized.

"Monarchianism": Disapprove - Ecjmartin (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC) The proper name of a specific religious "heresy".

Approve -R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Again, no clear reason for capitalization

 Chzz  ►  06:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The above represent my opinions on the subject, and they are just that: my opinions. I do appreciate the detailed listing of questionable capitalizations, and the chance to insert my "two cents' worth" into the discussion, and am prepared to bow to whatever concensus is reached on this topic. - Ecjmartin (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For those who may not know, there is a movement known as the Holiness movement. I believe this is what "Wesleyan Holiness" refers to. So I'm not sure if "holiness" in Wesleyan holiness should be capitalized or not, however, I'm sure Wesleyan is capitlalized as it denotes Wesleyanism. Ltwin (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have written articles on the holiness movement, which doctrinally believes in Wesleyan holiness. (There is a small denomination founded by the late Rev Glenn Griffith, who was a collegue of mine, which is called the Wesleyan Holiness Church R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as Pentecostalism goes, in many places it is capitalized and in others it is lowercased. For example, as has been note by Rak-Tai, the style guide for religionwriters.com and the Columbia Encyclopedia and Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, both available at encyclopedia.com capitalizes Pentecostalism, however the Pew Forum study of Pentecostalism does not. Ltwin (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Religion edited by Lindsay Jones is I think one of the most universally accredited sources on religious material out there. That book capitalizes the "P" in "Pentecostal" and similar terms, but uses a lower case "c" in "charismatic", and that seems to be to be probably the best example to copy. John Carter (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Pentecostal is capitalized

Wikipedia's Manual of Style says in part:

Philosophies, theories, movements, and doctrines do not begin with a capital letter unless the name derives from a proper noun (capitalism versus Marxism) or has become a proper noun (lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to one of several specific political parties or ideologies, such as the US Republican Party or Irish Republicanism). Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas (as distinguished from specific events) capitalized by some religious adherents are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin, or transubstantiation.

Obviously, Pentecostal is derived from the proper noun - Pentecost. Ltwin (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

The organization of this article still leaves much to be desired. I'm focusing on the Beliefs section and will probably change it on these lines:

• Beliefs overview - which as of yet only has one paragraph

• Common beliefs - I'm not so happy with the title but I can't think of a better way to say this. This section will be for those beliefs and doctrines many if not most Pentecostals share, though I know that with any movement and especially one as large and varied as Pentecostalism its hard to generalize but I think we all can agree on at least some shared qualities.

• Salvation
• Spiritual gifts

• Speaking in tongues

• Ordinances and practices

• Beliefs by sub-groups - A better name could be found. This section would deal with the major sub groups of Pentecostalism such as classical (which itself would be divided between Holiness, Higher-Life, and Oneness) and as of now the only other one is Word of Faith.

• Classical Pentecostalism

• Holiness and higher life
• Oneness

• Word of faith movement

What does anyone else think? Ltwin (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It bothers me that the prosperity crowd claims to be part of pentecost. I would have to do a bit of research, but my feelings are that they are not pentecostals proper, only that many of them happen to nominally accept the gifts of the spirit. As such, I don't think that the prosperity message is a subset of pentecostal theology. As far as the gifts of the spirit are concerned, they appear to limit themselves to those few that enable them to scam the TV audience ("I have a word of knowledge that 100 people are going to 'plant a seed' of $1000 tonight"). Mmlj4 (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

With all do respect, that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. It is perfectly acceptable to question whether they are classical Pentecostals, but to say that they "happen to nominally accept the gifts of the spirit" seems to me to be extremely ill informed, especially when you consider that in many Assemblies of God churches the gifts of the Spirit are no longer in operation (some would say no longer welcome). I think you'd be surprised to learn that many in the Word of Faith movement are more noticeably Pentecostal in practice than many in the established denominations. Pentecostalism is a very diverse movement and scholars are still asking the question "what is Pentecostalism". Today, it is more correct, many people say, to talk of Pentecostalisms. No one said the prosperity gospel was a "subset of pentecostal theology". The Calvinists have had their own prosperity gospel. Ltwin (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

But that's how you have it listed: "Beliefs by sub-groups", then "Word of faith movement". I dispute that this is in fact true.

I do agree that many (most? I wonder these days) AG churches no longer want the gifts or moving of the Holy Spirit in their services. 70.171.94.246 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean "But that's how you have it listed". The Word of faith churches are within Pentecostalism. That doesn't mean they are representative of the movement or that all Pentecostals are word of faith adherents. What it does mean is we can't pick and choose what part of Pentecostalism we will accept or recognize. I will place a source to verify that it is indeed apart of Pentecostalism. Ltwin (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "and cannot be earned through good deeds alone such as penance" under Salvation seems a little strange to me. Penance is a Catholic idea, and to my knowledge Pentecostals never think in terms of punishing themselves in order to earn God's favor. The remainder of the sentence is correct, however. I suggest that the fragment "such as penance" be deleted from the text. Mmlj4 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that was weird to as I'm sure my pastor doesn't even know what the word "penance" means lol. I didn't put that in there and I've been debating taking that out myself just never got to it. I have no problem with it being taken out. Ltwin (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed Bible Quote

I realize that translations and quotes from the Bible are a bit of a touchy issue with some folk, so I tend to leave notices on the talk page when I change a biblical quotation, so that I can justify my reasoning. In this case, the section Early History contained a quote from Joel 2, attributed to the NIV. It didn't look right to me, so I looked into Joel 2 in the NIV and discovered that the verses being referred to (28 and 29) said something significantly different from the quote in the sections. So I replaced the text with a quote from the King James Version, which has the advantage of being both public domain and widely used. I did this because I wasn't sure whether the NIV can be posted used online, and I'm not comfortable with fair use laws. However, I have no ideological commitment to putting any version on Wikipedia, and if someone else wants to put in a different version, that's fine with me. I'll leave it to the rest to determine what the copyright law says. However, I will continue replacing uncited or innacurate quotations with appropriate quotations from public domain sources. Mitchell Powell (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and the thought behind it. I'm reverting the change to the earlier version. What is being quoted here in the WP article is not the Joel passage, but Peter's 'Acts 2:17' rendition of it, which is different. And the earlier WP version does seem to quote that occurence (in Acts) accurately. (When the writers of New Testament books quote the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), the quotes are not necessarily exact. For one thing, the OT was (mostly) originally in Hebrew, the NT mostly originally in Greek.) Hope that's OK. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe I didn't check the Acts reference. But a good catch on your part. But now that it's clear exactly where the quote comes from I'm glad it's there. And as to the difference between Greek and Hebrew, in all the N.T. quotes I've looked back into the Old Testament so far, the general content is usually very similar, so the Acts quote is fine instead of the Joel quote (especially given the fact that Pentecostalism is heavily rooted in the book of Acts). Keep up good work, Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The classic OT->NT discrepancy is probably Ephesians 4:7 'This is why it says: "When he ascended on high, he led ... and gave gifts to men"'. But the OT (Psalm 68:18) is "...received gifts from men". (But we drift off-topic!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And then there's the quotes like Romans 12:19, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay," where Paul quotes both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text ("Vengeance is mine" from the Hebrew text, "I will repay" from the LXX). It's endlessly fun stuff to ponder. Mitchell Powell (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sect

I object to the use of the euphemism "Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Christianity". Pentecostalism is not a renewal movement, it is a sect, plain and simple. Here is the definition of sect, from Wikipedia: "A sect is a group with distinctive religious, political or philosophical beliefs. Although in the past it was mostly used to refer to religious groups, it has since expanded and in modern culture can refer to any organization that breaks away from a larger one to follow a different set of rules and principles."

Under this definition, pentecostalism is a sect. My first edit was reversed under the argument that "the word sect has a negative connotation" (really a failed attempt at maintaining a non-neutral point of view). It is NOT Wikipedia's role to use euphemism and distortion of the truth to prevent some people being offended. If it is a sect, describe it as such.

Also, notice I used the word "sect", not "cult". 76.10.152.216 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Under this definition, pentecostalism is a sect," ~ yeah along with every other Christian tradition. It is also a movement. It is also described as a "renewal" movement. I see know reason to change a perfectly fine introductory sentence because one person insists on using a word which in the vernacular can sometimes carry negative connotations. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. "Renewal movement" is not a euphemism. It is an accurate description. Ltwin (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not getting into an edit war with you. Put simply the word "sect" is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines. The relevant guideline is the one on Contentious labels. This guideline says in part:

... cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, terrorist, freedom fighter, pseudo-, -gate, controversial ...

"Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

Therefore, I will be removing the word "sect" from this sentence. If you would like to discuss ways to improve the on the term "renewal movement" I'm happy to discuss it with you. Ltwin (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I also do not wish for an edit war. There was an edit conflict which prevented me from posting this:

I think this whole article only describes Pentecostalism superficially, and fails to explain how Pentecostalist churches work and what are the psychological effects of Pentecostalism. Those characteristics seem to be missing in the article. Discouragement of questioning, doubt, and dissent. Mind-numbing techniques (such as speaking in tongues). Inducing guilt in order to control. Members enrolling family members; if reluctant to, ties are cut, relationships broken. Unquestioning obedience and submission to the group, both actions and thoughts. Group "love" and acceptance becomes dependent upon obedience and submission. etc. etc. I fear I would be unable to neutrally edit the article to convey those points, having gone through this hell myself. So I will not start an edit war. But I hope these words will remain on this talk page and may be able to help at least one person reading them.76.10.152.216 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What you have to understand about Pentecostalism is that it is extremely diverse. I am sorry to here that you were hurt. I'm Pentecostal too and I've been lucky to see what true Pentecostalism looks like, where there isn't a control factor. I'm aware of Pentecostal "churches" which exhibit characteristics which you describe but I know of many non-Pentecostal religious groups that also have those same problems. I'm glad you are out of that situation, but I would just bare in mind that Pentecostalism is a very diverse movement and you could have two Pentecostal churches right down the street from each other and they be nothing alike. I literally experienced this when my church was at its old location. Not four lots down the street was a Pentecostal Holiness Church and my church had nothing in common with them at all. I'm not trying to convert you, I'm just saying don't put all Pentecostals in one box. Ltwin (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I should be careful to not overgeneralize. But is it normal that I find no mention AT ALL in the article of the psychological abuse that goes on in at least SOME of those churches (well I can only speak for one) ? Are there no valid sources which we could include in just a section in the article ? I admit that I must not overgeneralize, and I trust that even though you are Pentecostalist yourself, you will agree that this article should include, in a dedicated section perhaps, relevant documented cases of cult-like activities in Pentecostalism. If fact, of all people, Pentecostalists should have no objection to the frauds being denouced, as they hurt the Church's image in addition to people and families. 76.10.152.216 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Do I have a problem with that? No, not necessarily. And there has not been an attempt to whitewash the article. It's just that I'm really the only editor that focuses alot of attention on this page on a regular bases and I've just never come across any studies or articles which have dealt with this.

The problem we have is how to do that in a way which 1) doesn't give undo weight, and 2) recognizes and reflects the fact that there are many individual Pentecostal congregations out there and many small fringe groups out there also. What I'm trying to say is that while there are abuses in some churches, it is not the majority of Pentecostal churches and movements. We have to distinguish between the many different Pentecostal groups out there. If for example a source were to criticize a specific denomination, then criticism should be directed to that groups article. There is also the issue of the fact that many Pentecostal groups criticize and mistrust one another. For example, many classical Pentecostals think that "physical manifestations" are not appropriate and may not even be Spirit directed and they do not associate with churches where those things occur. So you also have to consider fringe groups that call themselves Pentecostal but that even most Pentecostals do not associate with.

So in theory I have know problem incorporating claims made in reliable and verified sources about abuses by Pentecostal churches. But I'm adamant about it not transforming into an outrageous collection of every negative, reactionary, ignorant, and baseless assertion out there from people, especially cessationist Christians, who to this day believe that Pentecostalism is a cult. Sorry for the rant. Ltwin (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "When charismatics are included with Pentecostals the number increases to nearly a quarter of the world's two billion Christians." In light of this fact, in no way can anyone justify calling Pentecost a sect or cult. If one wants to point out abberant behaviour or cultic practices, what about other groups (Seventh-Day adventists and David Koresh, or the Roman Catholic Church and pedophile priests, etc. etc.)? Does Pentecost and the Charismatic movement have problems? Surely. But I object to any attempt to degrade the movement as a whole and portray it as an illegitimate religious group. Mmlj4 (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is totally irrevelant. First, whether a single person or everyone on Earth adheres to a religion does not justify defining it as a cult* (see 3rd point below) or not. What matters is only how the movement behaves. Second, I don't understand why you mention David Koresh here. Branch Davidian is already described as a sect on Wikipedia; no one objected to the use of this word based on it's "negative connotation" over there. * Third, the objection to an attempt to degrade the movement as a whole is understandable, but that is no longer my intention. Please re-read the previous paragraphs. After discussion with Ltwin, I have suggested that a dedicated section somewhere in the article address the psychosocial problematics I have explained here, that are found in some Pentecostalism churches. In no way does that equate portraying the whole of Pentecostalism to a cult. 76.10.161.207 (talk) 09:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether sect is used in those articles are irrelevant as well and a violation of Wikipedia guidelines on contentious labels. Also it doesn't make since in this article anyway where the opening paragraph clearly defines what Pentecostalism is anyway. The word doesn't really offer any definition that is missing from the article currently—except a negative connotation. Ltwin (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand why we are still discussing this. Our discussion was going on good terms. Mmlj4 percieved a threat, specifically an attempt to degrade Pentecostalism as a whole. My answer to him was to illustrate that it was not my intention. With your agreement, I wish to re-center the discussion on the previous point you brough up; let's drop the whole "sect" debate. We were discussing about the possibility of adressing certain issues with regard to certain practices already enumerated occuring in some Pentecostalist churches. If I understood Ltwin correctly, he/she agrees to a Criticism section provided it is properly sourced and is not given undue weight. Now, knowing that we all, myself included, do not wish to engage in baseless religion-bashing, and that such a section in the article would not negatively portray Pentecostalism as a whole but instead allow people to better differentiate and understand the extent of the variety in rituals, norms and practices within a subset of Pentecostalist churches, it could only positively contribute to the article. But, it could also go against your personal interpretation of the Church's practices. Still, Mmlj4, do you agree to the inclusion of such a section in the article ? 76.10.156.172 (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

SECT: I can understand why some people would want to call Pentecostalism a 'sect' and I am well aware that there are a great deal of people who have had very negative experiences in such churches, however Pentecostalism is a widespread branch of Christianity. I have personal experience of cult like behaviour in 2 pentecostal churches however it is also fair to say that any denomonation within Christendom could also have abusive leaders. Recent teachings from the New Apostolic Reformation should rightly be seen as heretical because they are inconsistent with what the church has taught and practiced for 1900 years. [Unsigned comment by User:124.180.115.15 14:49, 26 April 2011]

Calling Pentecostalism a "sect" is problematic for two reasons:

• "sect" means a partial or full split-off from another mainstream Christianity, what is "mainstream" in Christianity? "Mainstream" is IMHO a biased view – my current stand point is that each and every denomination whatsoever in Christianity is heterodox from at least one another denomination,
• "sect" have a connotation "destructive" which in extreme cases translates to "cult",

"renewal movement" is more neutral, and a little true unless it emerged as a way within one self-labeled "orthodox" Christianity to remove deviations and conserve the system so that no changes could be made. English (and any natural language) is not precise enough to allow us to create more precise nominal phrases than that, especially in the bewildered sphere of religion, where misleading catch-phrases are as numerous as in the computer market. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, "renewal movement" is a perfectly accurate term. It's even used by people who study the movement, such as the [Pew Forum's survey on Pentecostalism]. It was removed to accommodate one user's objections. I'll add it back in. Ltwin (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The same Wikipedia article quoted at the start of this section states 'The historical usage of the term sect in Christendom has had pejorative connotations, referring to a group or movement with heretical beliefs or practices that deviate from those of groups considered orthodox.' Some parts of the Christian mainstream church consider pentecostalism to be a sect (possibly inferred by Pope Benedict's comments "Faced with a new form of Christianity, which is spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism, sometimes in frightening ways, the mainstream Christian denominations often seem at a loss....This is a form of Christianity with little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability. This worldwide phenomenon poses a question to us all: what is this new form of Christianity saying to us, for better and for worse?") - which is rather ironic considering the early church was considered to be a Jewish sect ("But we desire to hear from you what you think; for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere"). Given the WP article definition then the use of 'cult' in the context of this article has the potential to be read and considered as a POV statement and should be avoided. Form, Movement, style, .... johnmark†talk to me 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Tongues and Salvation

reverted this edit from Topsaint. His edit was sourced; however, he has misunderstood the sources he cites. Let me explain. He cited The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; however, I read nothing which states that Pentecostals view tongues or a Pentecostal-like baptism experience as necessary or essential to salvation. The closest thing I can see is the following, "Its adherents emphasize the corporate element in worship (often marked by great spontaneity) and lay stress on the practice of the gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12 and 14 and recorded Acts (e.g. speaking in tongues or glossolalia, divine [spiritual] healing, and exorcism) and on possession of these gifts by all true believers." Of course "lay stress on . . . possession of these gifts" is not the same thing as saying "you must have these gifts to be saved."

Topsaint also cited Arrington's Pneuma article. On page 1-2, he writes, "In one sense, every believer has the presence of the Holy Spirit. . . . One cannot be a Christian without having the Spirit, which is the same as being indwelt by the Spirit." The conclusion of the article on page 9 states:

"There is a real sense in which regenerated persons have the Spirit. To be indwelt by the Spirit at regeneration is one thing, but to be baptized or filled with the Spirit is quite another. Regeneration is accompanied by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but being filled with the Spirit is distinct from His previous work in regeneration. Viewed in its inception the fulness of the Spirit must be considered as the initial "filling" with glossolalia as the normative sign of the experience."

Therefore, Arrington clearly distinguishes being indwelt by the Spirit which is the state of every regenerated or saved person and being filled with the Spirit which is the state of those who have received the Pentecostal baptism in the Holy Spirit. Tell me where that says that one is not regenerated unless having been baptized with the Spirit or having spoken in tongues? Ltwin (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Singing in the Spirit" vs "Speaking in the Spirit"

I hope not to offend but I changed "singing in tongues" to "speaking in tongues".Marrik666 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't offend. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, I was interested in the change. I reverted it back to "singing in the spirit" as this is a term that has been mentioned in academic sources and a term that I as a Pentecostal have heard used. I've never heard or read of corporate singing in tongues referred to as "speaking". That would be grammatically nonsensical. Ltwin (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand but I've been raised Pentacostal since I was 3. In my family and church, it was always refered to as "speaking" in tongues after the experience in the upper room in the book Acts. I think it was chapter 2. The whole tongues of fire thing. Please respond.Marrik666 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes when one "speaks" in tongues it is referred to as speaking in tongues. What is being referred to is a practice which is not "speaking" but "singing"—literally singing in tongues. It has been referred to as "singing in the Spirit" since Azusa Street. This term has been used by Pentecostals as much as speaking in tongues has. Cecil M. Robeck Jr. in The Azusa Street Mission and Revival: The Birth of the Global Pentecostal Movement provides good descriptions of singing in the Spirit. Pages 151-152 he quotes Arthur Osterberg who gives the following description:

We would all sing a song or chorus, and everyone would join in. Then choruses would break out here and there, and some would be singing in tongues and some in English – and the harmony was wonderful. Once in a while a soprano voice would leap out and you would hear it above the whole congregation. Then it would be mingled with other voices and it all formed a beautiful harmony. Then the singing would stop short and everyone would start praising the Lord, some speaking in an undertone in tongues, some clapping their hands in praise to God. No one who has ever heard a congregation singing under the unction of the Spirit could ever forget or mistake it.

In the same pages, Robeck quotes a news reporter,

A colored woman with the voice of a Patti began singing in a tongue which probably never before was heard. Her voice was joined by a contralto of great depth and richness, but singing another tongue. Others took up the chant, each after her own tune and ‘tongues,’ till the building was vocal with the tones of golden mellowness. They say that the Holy Ghost tunes their voices.

On page 149, Robeck says it goes by different name: "singing in the Spirit", "singing in tongues", the "heavenly anthem", the "heavenly chorus" or "heavenly choir", and the "chorus of tongues".

Please also note 1 Corinthians 14:15, "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind." Also note that what his happening is corporate singing in tongues. It's not simply speaking in tongues. Hope that helps. Ltwin (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Something that may also interest you is a practice which occurred in the early Christian church beginning from the 4th century with the decline of the vocal gifts of the spirit in the church to the 9th century. It was called jubilation and St. Augustine describes it this way:

• What is jubilation? Joy that cannot be expressed in words. Yet the voice expresses what is conceived in the heart and cannot be explained in words. This is jubilation.
• To manifest his joy, the man does not use words that can be pronounced or understood, but bursts forth into sounds of exaltation without words.
• Where speech does not suffice… they break out into singing on vowel sounds, that through this means the feeling of the soul may be expressed, words failing to explain the heart’s conceptions."

For more on jubilation, see here. Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should just say "also called speaking" to the article? That sounds reasonable to me.Marrik666 (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Also read Acts chapter 2 I think.Marrik666 (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Eschatological beliefs

What percentage of pentecostals prescribe to the doctorine of dispensationalism? If it's rather high, I believe it should be included in the article. --Confession0791 ^talk 07:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally, Pentecostals do believe in dispensationalism, if by that you mean that God deals with humanity in different ways at different times and that this current dispensation, that of the church, is soon coming to an end. It will culminate with the rapture of the church and the seven year tribulation followed by the millennial reign of Christ. If that's what you mean then yeah. I would think its almost pretty universal among classical Pentecostals. However, not all Pentecostals are members of classical denominations and their beliefs can be quite diverse, but many non-classicals adhere to dispensationalism also. Pentecostals have historically emphasized that the revival of spiritual gifts was a sign of the end times, but this has lessened with the passage of time. Ltwin (talk) 07:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How can that be included in the article? --Confession0791 ^talk 07:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a brief statement at the end of the "Beliefs and practices" section. Pentecostal eschatology probably does deserve its own section because it was central to the beginning of the movement and still is an important part of Pentecostal identity. Pentecostalism was born at a time when there was high expectancy that Christ would soon return. Its missionary emphasis derives from this belief. Ltwin (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible gaps

Could someone write something about the importance of Pentecostalism in Africa, and its continuing growth there? Same goes for Brazil and the Caribbean.

Perhaps the obvious needs to be stated more strongly - within the United States and the UK (and other territories?) Pentecostal congregations often draw many or most of their members from the black community of the country.

Could someone also comment on attitudes to material prosperity in Pentecostalism? I can't recollect any source, but I've read/heard that even in early Pentecostalism there was a strong belief in the pursuit of material success, presumably through - in varying proportions - industriousness on the part of the believer, and compliance with the will of God in the expectation that blessings would follow. That's not to say that undiluted Prosperity Theology is the norm within Pentecostalism, of course.

(As a secular being, I'd humbly suggest that the belief in Doing Well might be expected to appeal to a segment of society that 100 years ago was largely poor and routinely mistreated. I add that as something to be considered for article purposes - not to provoke.)

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, wow you've brought up alot.

1) One of the problems is the highly confused categories of global charismatic Christianity today. Should this article be about classical Pentecostalism or also include non-classical movements that have more in common with charismatic groups? But you are right, global Pentecostalism needs to be better included in this article.

2) I'm not sure your assertion that (in the United States at least) that Pentecostalism is primarily a black movement. I think much of this stereotype comes from the differences in worship culture of white and black Pentecostal churches. White Pentecostals tend to have less emotional services and may place less emphasis on their Pentecostal affiliation which gives the impression that they are a generic evangelical non-denominational church. Perhaps we should consider creating specific pages for each country's movement, such as Pentecostalism in the United Kingdom?

3) Your point about material prosperity is interesting. From what I've read, there was not a "a strong belief in the pursuit of material success." In fact, there was often an assumption that po:verty implied greater spirituality. However, there was a definite belief that the believer should be diligent and "industrious" when it came to spreading the Gospel. It was taught that if one stepped out in faith to evangelize, do missionary work, or to pursue a preaching ministry that God would provide the funds and supplies that one needed. This is one reason why many early Pentecostal evangelists did not ask for funds but relied on unsolicited donations.

There was always a strong belief that God would keep his promises and that he would provide for his people, but this is not the same as saying that prosperity theology as it is known today was taught from the beginning. The fact is that the majority of the early Pentecostals were from the lower classes. What they meant by "God will meet my needs" was quite different than what you hear today. The classical Pentecostals have quite strongly disapproved of the prosperity gospel. Ltwin (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I intend to work on this article more. I'm focusing on the Beliefs section right now, but this article definitely needs a History section of greater quality. Feel free to help improve the article. Ltwin (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Revised "Salvation" section

I have revised the "Salvation" section. However, in doing so I wondered should the two teachings on sanctification be included in this section or should it be explained in the "Classical Pentecostalism" section which explains the difference between Wesleyan and non-Wesleyan Pentecostalism? What do others think? Ltwin (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article needs substantial work. The claims of believers should be stated as claims, not facts. Ptet (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no NPOV violations. I will comment on each of your changes one by one.

1) Pentecostalism is a renewal movement[1] within Christianity that places special emphasis on what believers say is a direct personal experience of God through the baptism in the Holy Spirit, has an eschatological focus, and is an experiential religion.[2]

It is not necessary to say "what believers say is" because Wikipedia never says "this direct personal experience of God is real." We are describing a religion which places emphasis on a direct personal experience of God. There is no judgement as to whether such an experience is real or psychological or divine or whatever.

2)Pentecostalism's emphasis on what it claims are "spiritual gifts" places it within Charismatic Christianity, a broad grouping of Christians who have accepted some Pentecostal teachings on Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts.

First, "spiritual gifts" should not be in quotation marks. It is a theological term and category widely used. Second, while we should say "Pentecostals claim/believe spiritual gifts are real and from God," it is unnecessary to use claim/believe in this instance because all that is being commented on is the emphasis that Pentecostals place on the theological topic of spiritual gifts. That is not in doubt. No one doubts that Pentecostals place an emphasis on spiritual gifts as defined by Pentecostals and the wider Christian theological community.

Think about it this way. Wikipedia would never say at Catholicism, "Catholicism's emphasis on what it claims are sacraments place it within sacramental Christianity." Encyclopedias never phrase things like this. In fact, you have now created an actual NPOV violation because you are making a judgement as to whether Catholics actually have sacraments!

3)While the figure of Jesus Christ and his claimed redemptive work are at the center of Pentecostal theology, that redemptive work is believed to provide for a fullness of the Holy Spirit of which believers in Christ may take advantage.

While I don't have a problem with the phrase "the figure of Jesus Christ," I don't understand why you insert "claimed" here. Must we put a "claim" after every religious statement, even when there is no judgement being made as to whether something is true or not. We can say, "Pentecostals believe in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ" without implying that the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is something real or verifiable. What is verifiable is that Pentecostals believe it. We cannot verify the redemptive work of Christ, but we what Pentecostals believe.

Adding "believes" or "claims" after every descriptive statement just for the fact of proving a point is repetitive, ridiculous and destructive to prose. Ltwin (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not expecting every claim of Pentacostalism to be preceded by "claimed" or something equivalent - it is the tone of the writing which is not neutral. There is also nothing in this article about any controversies surrounding pentecostalism - which surely are notable. (There is this quote left without comment or challenge: "Some most remarkable miracles have been reported from the use of this method." Which healings are these?). Hopefully someone with more time than I can do some work on this. You are welcome to disagree - and perhaps to take care of my concerns by adding a controversies section? Ptet (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That sentence "Some most remarkable miracles have been reported from the use of this method," is found within a large quote which is not even talking about "proof" that miracles accompany prayer cloths. That quote is describing the Pentecostal practice of using prayer cloths. Why would we exclude from the article the fact that Pentecostals believe that things like prayer and prayer cloths can produce miracles? No one is saying that they do. We are only saying that Pentecostals believe they do. Why would we need to find examples of proof of these miracles when we aren't trying to prove that it happens? Once again, we are only describing that Pentecostals believe they happen! Ltwin (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a "controversies" subsection in the Early revivals section. I don't know what other controversies there would need to be added. Within Christianity, Pentecostalism is widely accepted today by non-Pentecostals. And outside of Christianity, people are going to have disagreements with Christianity in general. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are "not aware" of any controversies surrounding modern Pentecostalism? Perhaps http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pentecostalism+controversial can help. If you really are "not aware" of this, fair enough, but I hope we can therefore agree this article needs more work. Ptet (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that the article is non-neutral because we haven't written what you want us to? Should we be able to read your mind?? This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What controversies would you put in the article? What controversies are you talking about. A movement as vast as Pentecostalism surely has many controversies. So what is it that you want put in the article??? Ltwin (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this article is non-neutral because it has been written (from what I can see) by Pentacostals with no interest in providing relevant information which might show the movement in a less-than-flattering light. I'll make some suggested changes I hope next week when I have the time, but the type of things you might like to cover if you wish are (a) the recent research on speaking in tongues which shows that it is similar across many non-Christian traditions; (b) controversies over "aggressive" proselytising from within the movement, especially in Asia and South America; (c) controversies over claims of claimed faith healings; and (d) arguments within the movement over perceived "modernisation". "A movement as vast as Pentecostalism surely has many controversies." Indeed - so let this article deal with them, even in summary. Ptet (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think the article lacks in an area, you write about that topic. You don't slap a NPOV tag on an article accusing editors of bias. Maybe we are writing based on the sources we are aware of and the interests we have. No one is stopping you from editing the article, however, nitpicking over including words such as "claim" and "believe" in every sentence does not improve the article.

(a) there is an article on speaking in tongues where this can be (and is) discussed. This article is about Pentecostalism, not about other religions.

(b) ok as long as the contributions follow WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Reliable Sources then go for it.

(c) once again, go for it as long as it follows Wikipedia guidelines

(d) once again, go for it as long as it follows Wikipedia guidelines.

Please, can we stop with the accusations of editor bias. This article is a work in progress, can it be better? Yeah. Is it complete? Not really. The parts of the history section are a mess. Your proposal b could go in the "Denominations and adherents" section or even the history section or we could expand the eschatology section to cover the missiological emphasis of Pentecostalism and the consequences this has via "aggressive" proselytism. Your proposal c would fit nicely in the section on divine healing. Your proposal d would be a good addition to the later part of the history sections. I think the sections on speaking in tongues could mention briefly the similarities with other religions, but it should not be voluminous as there is an article on speaking in tongues which can cover this. We can work together, you don't have to label the article as POV crap to get things done. Ltwin (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I do think that the POV question is valid - some of this article reads (no offence) like a brochure - but we're all here to pull together so I'll remove my POV for now and make changes to the main article when I get the chance - unless someone else wants to have a go. Pentecostalism is a fascinating movement followed by many millions of people, and I'm sure it deserves a more knowledgable person than me to add to what is already a through and interesting entry here. Ptet (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell what parts sound like a "brochure" to you? Ltwin (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sentences of the first and third paragraphs, for example. Without quite a bit of background knowledge, I think they read like jargon.The section "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" reads like one of those articles by a corporation which tells me how great the corporation is. The sentence "Some of these are immediate while others are enduring or permanent" repeats a claim of Pentacostals as fact. The section on "Tongues and interpretation" tells me what Pentacostals claim without any background or even neutral information. In fact, skimming through it now much of it reads like an "introduction to Pentacostalism", not an encyclopaedia article. That said, the article is packed with information which is a good thing - it is (to me) not written in a neutral, encyclopaedic tone. Compare and contrast the entry on "Islam".It's packed with information and (again to me) has a neutral tone and does not sound like it's a Muslim telling me the history of his religion. I appreciate "tone" is often subjective - but that's why we have the gift of POV flags and talk pages. Seriously, I am not criticising the formidable knowledge of the subject of Pentacostalism that the authors of this article show, nor their sincerity in getting that information across... I just don't see that the article is as neutral and as balanced as one expects from Wikipedia. Ptet (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For the Spirit Baptism section, I read that sentence you point out together with the preceding sentence which says, "Pentecostals expect certain results following baptism with the Holy Spirit." Then follows the sentence, "Some of these are immediate while others are enduring or permanent." So, any qualification to the second sentence would sort of be redundant since the results being mentioned have already been placed within Pentecostal expectations. At least that is the way I read it.

Concerning the "Tongues and Interpretation" section, you write, "The section on "Tongues and interpretation" tells me what Pentacostals claim without any background or even neutral information." Exactly what "background" should be provided? What would be "neutral information" besides what is already mentioned? Ltwin (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On that opening sentence, I tend to agree about the technical terminology (I avoid the loaded word "jargon"). The lead of a WP article should aim to communicate with the general reader, so should aim for clarity, even at the risk of loss of some precision at that point. It currently says:

"Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism in the Holy Spirit, has an eschatological focus, and is an experiential religion."

I would propose reducing it to something like:

"Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism in the Holy Spirit."

so avoiding the obscure (to the general reader) terms "eschatological" and "experiential" in the article lead.

Regarding glossolalia: I was surprised that the term was not wikilinked to the WP article. I've corrected that, linking it twice: the first occurrence in the article (standard WP policy) and the first occurrence within the section that primarily deals with the topic.

Ptet mentions "...the recent research on speaking in tongues which shows that it is similar across many non-Christian traditions". That's why I've made the links above. (I'm sure the previous omissions of the wikilinks are simply oversights.) But I'm also curious to Ptet's mention of such research being recent. I'm no expert whatsoever on these matters; but I had thought that the presence of glossolalia in other religions was well-established ages ago. The glossolalia article itself covers this. (Actually, it probably doesn't cover it very well! But that's a topic for its talk page, rather than this one.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ptet has drawn attention to the third paragraph (beginning "Pentecostalism's emphasis on the spiritual gifts..."). Myself, I didn't see anything particularly jargon-like in them. But I do worry about another aspect. The terms "charismatic", "pentecostalism" and "pentecostal" (particularly when that last is viewed in its denominational meaning) are overlapping but considerably different. So the quoting of numbers of adherents needs to be done carefully to avoid confusion. Even the BBC reference, not itself the origin of the figures, has some confusion of terminology within itself, stating "During the last three decades of the twentieth century Pentecostalism grew very strongly and there are now over 250 million Pentecostals around the world." Are their "Pentecostalism" and "Pentecostal" words describing the same thing? To which does their figure of "250 million" really apply? So I would suggest that this third paragraph could benefit from revision. Does it need to say anything at all about numbers? (Probably it should.) If so, what entity or entities should it try to enumerate? Pentecostal denominations? Pentecostalism? Charismatic adherents (whatever that means)? ... Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"I would propose reducing it to something like: 'Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism in the Holy Spirit.' so avoiding the obscure (to the general reader) terms 'eschatological' and 'experiential' in the article lead."

Agree (1) Most Christian denominations believe in eschatology -- one way or another. It's not something that's exclusive to Pentecostalism. But if it is going to be there, it should be linked to Christian eschatology. (2) I've never heard the phrase "experiential religion" in my life, and nowhere in that article does it mention Pentecostalism or Charismaticism. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead sentence could be simplified. About the numbers, it is confusing because today there is so much overlap between Pentecostal and charismatics. The BBC reference isn't exactly the best source for this anyway. Ltwin (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've just simplified the opening sentence. And I'm just about to remove the numbers thing also. Not only does the BBC reference seem somewhat ambiguous, but the "Pew Forum" reference seems to be very vague in what, in reality, is being enumerated. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentalism category

Someone, not me, added a category fundamentalism and had this reverted today. Pentecostalism is not fundamentalism, but there are as clear associations between the two labels as between the christian right label and pentecostalism that has been allowed. What is the rationale for removing that label? Should we also remove Christian Right for the same reason?

Well, first off, Pentecostals are not Fundamentalists. There are clear differences. As to why it was removed, I don't know since I was not the editor to remove it. However, I can give two reasons on my own:

1) If we were to add it, we should at least get the article right. It should be Christian Fundamentalism. 2) Christian Fundamentalism is already linked in the section 1930-1959. Therefore, there is no point in adding the term to the See also section. Ltwin (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough if it is already linked, I did not check that. However whilst I noted that Pentecostals are not Fundamentalists, I have known a significant number of pentecostals who do claim the label for themselves. It seems no more inappropriate than "Christian Right" which is also a label many claim for themselves, although many pentecostals are very far from the right wing of politics. Anyhow, as we have the link you mention, I will pipe down now.

Sirfurboy (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

running the aisles

A revert of an edit that removed redundancy looks odd to me. The text reads:

The "running the aisles" and the "Jericho march" are also traditional Pentecostal practices. The Jericho march, a form of corporate worship, involves a congregation marching with loud shouts of prayer and singing. Another practice in some Pentecostal churches is running the aisles.

i.e. first sentence has "the running the aisles... is also a traditional..." and last sentence "another practis ... is running the aisles". That is redundant. If you wish to separate running the aisles from the jericho march, the first one should go. I will make that edit now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirfurboy (talk • contribs) 09:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops. I edit this page all the time and cant' believe I missed that! I only saw the removal of running the aisles and assumed the editor was saying that the Jericho march and running the aisles were the exact same thing! Anyway, I have no problem with your edit. Ltwin (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual gifts too simplistic

I am unfamiliar with the work by Van Cleave, and I object to its simplistic interpretation of the subject of spiritual gifts.

While it might make sense to create simple cladistic categories (i.e., "vocal" gifts), such notions do not fit the descriptions given by the Apostle's writings (i.e., I Cor 12). Paul said that "...to one " (that is, to one sort of believer) is given the gift of tongues, and to another (greek, hallos - another of the same sort) is given the interpretion of tongues. To yet another sort of believer (greek, heteros - another of a different sort) is given the logos of wisdom, or the logos of knowledge. To yet another class of believers are given the remaining gifts (discerning of spirits, miracles, healings, faith, and prophecy.

Prophecy, then, is not classified by the Apostle as a "vocal" gift. It is hard to say what reason there may be for the opinions of Van Cleave, but his source isn't grounded in a careful reading of the Greek text. Still, it leaves one to wonder: whatever reason there is for the distribution of different gifts to different individuals may be found in individual differences in attitude, character, or some other qualifying conditions. To me, there is no question that the Apostle associated certain gifts with individual attributes of the believers who exercised them. Mjmondt (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is simply distinguishing between those gifts that involve speech and those they do not. This same categorization has been utilized in the article to provide focused sections for the different gifts. No one is saying Paul would have used that terminology, but there is a similar dichotomy found in 1 Peter 4:11 where is mentioned "whoever speaks" and "whoever renders service." The article does not claim that this is biblical terminology, it only claims that such characteristics have been observed. These differing characteristics are helpful in structuring the article. Unless you have a WP:Reliable source that reflects a Pentecostal viewpoint to back up what you are saying, this falls under the category of WP:No Original Research. Ltwin (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: what is the difference, eith...

64.185.130.217 posted this comment on 16 June 2013 (view all feedback).

what is the difference, either official or unofficial, between a Pentecostal congregation and an Assemblies of God congregation? What about congregations that bill themselves as both Pentecostal AND Assemblies of God?

Any thoughts?

The Assemblies of God is a denomination within the Pentecostal movement.

DocRushing (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Foursquare Gospel

"Pentecostals emphasize the teaching of the "full gospel" or "foursquare gospel". The term foursquare refers to the four fundamental beliefs of Pentecostalism: Jesus saves according to John 3:16; baptizes with the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4; heals bodily according to James 5:15; and is coming again to receive those who are saved according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17.[5]" This is technically incorrect and unsupported. I think that they are referring to this book by Dayton that one can find with excerpts on the Internet - "The Theological Roots of Pentecostalism." I am unable to find the statement that the foursquare gospel refers to the four fundamental beliefs of Pentecostalism within that book. The terminology of the "foursquare gospel" is a term uniquely used by the "International Church of the Foursquare Gospel," not by Pentecostalism as a whole. "It's the Foursquare Gospel, the Foursquare Gospel, Clear let the message of the Foursquare ring, Jesus Only Savior, Baptizer, and Healer, Jesus the Coming King." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QXpWTjacO8 Kids song from Angelus Temple ca. 1925.Easeltine (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The citation does not refer to Dayton's book, but to an article he wrote in 1980. The full reference can be found in the Reference section of the article (Dayton, Donald W. "Theological Roots of Pentecostalism". Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 2, no. 1 (Spring 1980): 3-21.) On page 4 of Dayton's article, he uses both "full gospel" and "foursquare gospel" interchangeably. The term "Foursquare" may be associated with the Foursquare Church, but they are not the only Pentecostals who use the concept of four cardinal doctrines to define Pentecostalism. Ltwin (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any other Pentecostal group uses the term "Foursquare." The term "Foursquare," is not found in any other Pentecostal group's Statement of Faith. Can anyone provide a reference other than Dayton's article from 1980 that uses the terminology "Foursquare?" Dayton is a Northern Baptist, might be a little skewed perspective. Easeltine (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Foursquare Gospel is the peculiar perspective of one denomination, The Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Other denominations which better represent the mainstream of the Pentecostal Movement are the Church of God in Christ, The Assembly of God, and the Church of God (headquartered in Cleveland Tennesee). While none of these churches reject Salvation, Baptism by Fire of the Holy Spirit, Divine Healing and Rapture as cardinal teachings of the early church, other denominations are more balanced and classically Wesleyan in their doctrines and dogmas. Trying to represent the entirity of the Full-Gospel perspectice as the Foursquare Gospel is to terminally truncate the teachings of the Pentecostal movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.111.31 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the term that is important, but the fact that these are common doctrinal emphases that all classical Pentecostals share. Do you deny that other Pentecostals follow these patterns? The Assemblies of God's own website emphasizes its "Core Doctrines" which are identical to the foursquare gospel paradigm.

Donald Dayton is not Baptist. He is a member of the Wesleyan Church, which is theologically closer to Pentecostalism. He teaches at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, but he's the only non-Pentecostal/charismatic Christian who has ever been elected president of the Society for Pentecostal Studies. In his 1987 book Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton writes: "These four themes are well-nigh universal within the movement, appearing, as we have been arguing, in all branches and varieties of Pentecostalism" (p. 21-22).

In any case, it is not for us to decide if Dayton "proves" his point or not. Dayton is a reliable source, and Wikipedia defers to reliable sources when deciding what goes into articles. The reliable sources say that the full gospel, fourfold gospel, or foursquare gospel (whatever term one uses) is central to how Pentecostals think about their theology across the different groups within the movement. I think its a fine way to structure the article in terms of what beliefs are most characteristic of Pentecostals. Ltwin (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Pentecostal pastors

Category:Pentecostal pastors and related categories have been nominated for renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Ltwin (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Appearance of Pentecostals

Shouldn't the appearance of pentecostals be included. They all follow the old testament on how women and men should appear. With women having long hair and long skirts and men having beards and pants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwesar (talk • contribs) 02:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source stating that "all" Pentecostals follow this dress code. I can give you many that state that most do not. Some specific groups may have dress codes, but there is not universal Pentecostal "appearance". Ltwin (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The above dress code is not part of Assemblies of God, Foursquare, or COGIC.Easeltine (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the teaching comes from New Testament scripture, not Old. Today, that type of dress is typical for Oneness Pentecostalism or Holiness, which is already mentioned in the 1960–present sub-section. Also, there are some groups that teach and dress that way that aren't Pentecostal. And, incidentally, all 3 of those denominations above (plus the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) and others) came out of the Holiness movement, and originally did dress that way, but changed between the late-60s to the early-80s (depending the particular group). --Musdan77 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] After saying all that, I notice now that you (Qwesar) said, "men having beards" (??) Did you leave out the word "not"? I don't know of any Pentecostals that teach to have beards. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement[1] within Protestant Christianity

Are you sure, surely many within the protestant Christian community reject Pentecostalism, http://www.gty.org.uk/resources/sermon-series/219/charismatic-chaos , the Westminster confession of faith (aritcle 1,1) http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ , RC Sproul https://www.gty.org/blog/B131008/rc-sproul-on-the-cessationist-convictions-of-the-reformers , what about some differences in core doctrines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism I don't think you can say it is within Protestant or reformed Theology at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeepVeinInsomnia (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The bigger issue raised here has to do with distinctive that define a particular denomination or movement. To say that: anyone who doesn't accept the pope as titular leader and authoritative prophet and interpreter of scripture and practice is protestant is simplistic in the extreme and factually inaccurate. While Pentecostals do take this stance they do NOT have other distinctives in common with Protestants, such as: doctrine of election, eternal security, and irresistible grace. Pentecostals are also not Sola Scriptura in that they do believe that God continues to speak authoritatively through prophecy given to prophets--both in tongue with interpretation and didactic messages passed in ecstatic utterance in a known language. They are not Sola Gratia in that Classical Pentecostalism teaches that maintenance (not reception) of salvation and of the relationship wherein the spiritual gifts can operate requires a life of obedience to the commands and dictates of OLD AND NEW testament moral law. This is what is alluded to in another comment where the commemorator mentions clothing. The "holiness standards" associated with Pentecost and indeed the classsical Wesleyan tradition at large is an attempt to insure moral dress that avoids the appearance of evil and worldly sensuality. In other words four distinctives: Per Obsequium (as oposed to Sola Gratia, Per Oraculum, the present day outpouring of the Spirit and Gifts, and a total rejection of even one point Calvinism clearly position John Wesley and the Pentecostal offshoot thereof OUTSIDE of the protestant umbrella. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.111.31 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please post one reliable source that states that John Wesley was not Protestant. Also, please find a reliable source that states Pentecostals reject sola scriptura or sola gratia. Also, please find me a reliable source that states that eternal security and irresistible grace are required beliefs one must hold to be considered Protestant. I have posted reliable sources, unconnected to any denominational perspective, that state that Pentecostals are Protestant. I have posted a reliable source that gives a non-sectarian definition of Protestantism. All anyone else in this discussion has offered are opinion and falsehood. The belief in spiritual gifts of prophecy do not violate Sola Scriptura. In the case of classical Pentecostalism, all prophecies are subject to testing by the Scripture. In order to squash this debate, I'm adding a citation to the claim that Pentecostalism is Protestant. I don't think it needs it as the "Protestantism" of Pentecostalism is well established by sources in the article. Ltwin (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether Reformed Protestants like Pentecostalism or not has no bearing on whether Pentecostalism is a Protestant movement (In any case, those Reformed Christians you have cited are not the only representatives of Reformed Christianity on this subject). Reformed churches do not get to decide who is and isn't Protestant. Are you aware that there are and always have been Protestants who disagreed with cessationism? Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine what is eligible for inclusion in articles. You can find guidelines for determining what is and is not a reliable source at WP:Reliable Sources.

Many non-Pentecostal Protestants consider Pentecostals to be Protestant. For example, a number of Pentecostal denominations have membership in the National Association of Evangelicals. These include the Assemblies of God USA, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), and others. They are in partnership with Reformed denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America.

Scholars of religion routinely classify Pentecostalism as a subset of evangelical Protestantism. Examples include the PewForum (Why has Pentecostalism grown so dramatically in Latin America?), the Encyclopedia of Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity, and Columbia Encyclopedia's entry for "Protestantism". Ltwin (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for debate, my thoughts, "Whether Reformed Protestants like Pentecostalism or not has no bearing on whether Pentecostalism is a Protestant movement", so the church of little bo beep can now declare itself a protestant church and it does not matter whether or not that community accepts it? There are many within reformed theology that have deep concerns about Pentecostalism and some claim some strands, such as oneness to be heresy. A similar debate is faced by Mormons that are attempting to have their religion perceived as Christian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity

Are you aware that there are and always have been Protestant who disagree with cessationism? No actually I'm not aware of this, I would particularly welcome examples of this around the reformation (say October 31, 1517 on) or points of note outside the 1500s would also be the 1600s, and 1700s, I would spectacularly impressed if you could draw a conclusive line from the early Church Fathers all the way to today.

"Wikipedia relies on reliable sources", yes exactly could we see some before unsupported comments are added?

"Non-Pentecostal Prostestants consider Pentecostals to be Protestant", the national association of evangelicals is not one such organization with it's membership including churches such as the vineyard church, assemblies of God etc.

"Scholars of religion routinely classify Pentecostalism as subset of evangelical Protestantism", yes pentecostal ones do, what about oneness Pentecostalism is that subset too despite defining a different Godhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.212.88 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

"so the church of little bo beep can now declare itself a protestant church and it does not matter whether or not that community accepts it?"

• You have reduced Protestantism to the Reformed tradition, and made the self-described "Reformed" the arbiters of who is and is not Protestant. Yet, when Reformed denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, Christian Reformed Church in North America, and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church are in fellowship and partnership with Pentecostals in the most prominent evangelical Protestant inter-church body in the USA you say it is not Protestant. Really??? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

"A similar debate is faced by Mormons that are attempting to have their religion perceived as Christian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Christianity"

• Mormonism is an entirely different category. Mormons reject Sola Scriptura. Pentecostals subscribe to Sola Scriptura. Mormons have an open canon. Pentecostals do not. Mormonism is non-Trinitarian. Most of Pentecostalism is Trinitarian. Mormon baptisms are considered invalid by all Christian churches. Trinitarian Pentecostal baptisms are accepted. Pentecostalism is accepted as Protestant by Christian and academic sources. Mormonism has never been classified as Protestant by any reliable sources.

"I would particularly welcome examples of this around the reformation (say October 31, 1517 on) or points of note outside the 1500s would also be the 1600s, and 1700s, I would spectacularly impressed if you could draw a conclusive line from the early Church Fathers all the way to today."

• One example would be the Scottish Reformers. See "The Scottish Presbyterians and Covenanters: A Continuationist Experience in a Cessationist Theology" by Dean R. Smith published in the Westminster Theological Journal. Excerpts are available here.

"'Wikipedia relies on reliable sources', yes exactly could we see some before unsupported comments are added?"

• They are not unsupported. The entire article makes clear, with reliable sources, that Pentecostalism is a branch of evangelicalism. Read the article. As Wikipedia guidelines indicate, the lead section is a summary of the article and therefore citations for every claim in the lead are not necessary since it just repeats what has already been supported by evidence. See WP:LEAD.

"'Non-Pentecostal Prostestants consider Pentecostals to be Protestant', the national association of evangelicals is not one such organization with it's membership including churches such as the vineyard church, assemblies of God etc."

• All of these Presbyterians and Reformed Christians are wrong??? Or is it you don't consider them "legitimate" Presbyterians because they don't agree with your narrow definition of Protestantism? You can't be the only one getting it right.

"'Scholars of religion routinely classify Pentecostalism as subset of evangelical Protestantism', yes pentecostal ones do, what about oneness Pentecostalism is that subset too despite defining a different Godhead?"

• You are wrong. It's not just Pentecostal scholars who place it within Protestantism. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.), published by Oxford University Press (hardly a hotbed of Pentecostalism) writes in its entry on Protestantism:

Because Protestantism has become such an inclusive term, it is difficult to provide a definition of its beliefs; acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revealed truth, the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the universal priesthood of believers are characteristic. Protestants reject any kind of two-tier spirituality (clerical/monastic and lay); a lay spirituality based on Bible-reading and a high standard of personal morality have been the norm. In general Protestant worship is marked by the participation of the whole congregation, by the public reading of the Bible in the vernacular, and by an emphasis on preaching. Charismatic, Pentecostal Christianity has been an important element in modern Protestantism.

• Pentecostalism is widely regarded as a form of Protestantism. Oneness Pentecostals do reject the Trinity, which does place them outside of Protestant theology, but Oneness Pentecostals are a small proportion of overall Pentecostals, who are overwhelmingly Trinitarian and considered fully Protestant. Ltwin (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you think you are maybe mentioning the fringes here and hugely american view, what about southern baptists? What about the Presbyterian Church in the UK?

Pentecostals do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura if they believe they receive extra revelation that is on par with scripture. Mormonism is non-Trinitarian (as are some pentecostals, see point below, a little leaven) again we get to the credibility of sources and I'm yet to see your credible sources which by the above point would have to come from within mainstream reformed theology.

this book was wrote in 2001, I think you would agree, what little reference there might be, which I'm yet to be convinced of, lives in obscurity within the main body of reformed theology.

Again credible sources.

This is a tradition dating back hundreds of years, that occurred in geographically disparate locations yet was unified by it's interpretation of scripture, from which you must support your stance, you are picking sources that are clearly in agreement with you view (also arguably in geographically united locations with varying interpretations of scripture) and ignoring what I would argue to be the majority that are not.

This would honestly grief me if it was true, I'm glad it is not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism and the criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae at the very least you must acknowledge this definition is disputed and conversely must be tagged in the main article as such.

are you saying their are a subset that do not meet the five solae, but my question is do the "core" set meet them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.164.26 (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not insert your comments inside the comments of others. It causes confusion.

Re: "the american view"-- the Assemblies of God and several other Pentecostal denominations are members of the Evangelical Alliance UK, which like the NAE is a member of the World Evangelical Alliance.

Re: "Pentecostals do not subscribe to Sola Scriptura . . ."-- this is not true. Pentecostals believe that the gift of prophecy continues, but they do not place prophecy on the same level as Scripture. Pentecostals believe that the canon is closed. There is no more Scripture-level revelation. Prophecy is judged by Scripture. Scripture is not judged--it is obeyed. If you read any Pentecostal theological work, this will be plainly stated. A brief example is the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths. It's first article states: "The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct."

Re: "Mormonism is non-Trinitarian (as are some pentecostals, see point below, a little leaven)"-- yes, and this is mentioned already in the article. Oneness Pentecostals do fall outside of Protestantism, but the vast majority of Pentecostals are Trinitarian—so classifying the whole movement as non-Protestant because of a fringe group is not accurate.

Re: "I'm yet to see your credible sources which by the above point would have to come from within mainstream reformed theology"-- 1) I've provided many credible sources, including the Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which is as credible (and religiously unbiased) as you can get. 2) I don't know why you think that a credible source "would have" to be drawn from a "mainstream reformed" source. We would not require Reformed Christians to prove their Christianity by citing the opinions of Pentecostal theologians, so why would we put Pentecostalism in that position?

Re: "you are picking sources that are clearly in agreement with you view . . . and ignoring what I would argue to be the majority that are not"-- I haven't seen one source you provided that clearly states that "All classical Pentecostals are outside of Protestantism." Criticisms of Pentecostalism is not the same thing as a denial that Pentecostals are Protestants.

Re: "This would honestly grief me if it was true, I'm glad it is not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism . . ."-- Protestantism includes Pentecostals as a denominational family under the Protestant umbrella, so I am not sure what directing us there was supposed to prove. In any event, under Wikipedia's own rules (see Wikipedia: No original research), "Wikipedia articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Wikipedia articles."

Re: "are you saying their are a subset that do not meet the five solae, but my question is do the "core" set meet them?"-- Oneness Pentecostals are a small subset of classical Pentecostalism. They are non-Trinitarian, so most people would place them outside of Protestantism. As to whether the "core" of Pentecostals adhere to the five solae, I would say they do. Ltwin (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Technically, Pentecostals aren't Protestants because they weren't part of the Reformation - so they have/had nothing to protest against -- unless you want to say that Oneness Pentecostals protested against Trinitarianism -- but then they would say that Oneness doctrine is Apostolic (meaning it was how the original apostles believed). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5