Talk:Cessationism versus continuationism

Update of the title

The article should be called "Cessationism versus Continuationism" and not "Cessation-continuation debate." It is about a dispte between two positions known as Cessationism and Continuationism. Therefore, it does not make any sense to refer to the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists as "Cessation-continuation debate." Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The former page "Cessation-continuation debate" is now moved to the current page "Cessationism versus Continuationism." Theophilius (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The size of the article

The original article was 63kB long. I have reduced the article to 39kB. I think that further reductions would cripple the article. Theophilius (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Biased article

The part about arguments in favour of Cessationism is entirely biased: each argument is immediately countered by an argument in favour of continuationism. The author of this article is definitely not objective. For example, the Sola Scriptura argument is definitely one of the main reasons for cessationism. Instead, we now read: "Rather, we would regard the authority of the Scriptures according to the principle of Prima Scriptura." Who is 'we' and if 'we' is Wikipedia, why does it have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.123.21 (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you have not properly understood the point about Prima Scriptura which actually supports Cessationist view, namely that a Continuationist cannot consistently maintain the principle of Sola Scriptura, but rather that he is subscribing to Prima Scriptura. I think that the article is written neutrally showing arguments for each perspective. The 'we' in the context is voiced from a Cessationist perspective. Theophilius (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision of the first section Problems in the dispute

The second paragraph from the first section is totally biased and heavily tends to original research because it does not quote anybody.

I will remove it immediately. 92.29.171.229 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Biased towards which side? There is no explanation why it is biased. The second paragraph is important because it explains the context and the underlying (conceptual) assumptions of the dispute. There are differences in the conceptual understanding of the key concepts, and it is important to highlight this observation. Moreover, the dispute makes no sense if the underlying assumption, namely the acceptance of the principle of Sola Scriptura, is denied. The issue is not the validity of the underlying assumptions, but rather what are the underlying assumptions that both sides share, and whether there is a difference in understanding of the underlying concepts. Therefore, it is very damaging to remove this important paragraph. The note about quoting: the sections that follow show that much of the dispute revolves about the difference in understanding of the key concepts. It serves as an introduction, and it is neutral in character; both sides in the dispute agree with these observations. For this reason, it is not necessary to quote or give references in this introductory section. Theophilius (talk) 11:09, 04 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the title of this heading from "Bias" to "Revision of the first section Problems in the dispute". There is already one heading dealing with the question of neutrality. In this section of the Talk Page, we are more dealing with the question of the revision of the first section, i.e. whether the removal of the whole 2nd paragraph is justified. Theophilius (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal: improved the encyclopedic tone of the article

I have tried to improve the encyclopediac tone of the article by replacing first-person sentences with a more formal third-person style. All masculine singular third person pronouns are replaced with gender neutral pronouns as well. There are also other minor editions for improving a more neutral style. I believe that the encyclopedic tone of the article is no longer an issue, and for this reason I have removed the maintaince template. Theophilius (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessationism versus Continuationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424071706/http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com:80/enjoying-god/the-case-for-continuationism/ to http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/enjoying-god/the-case-for-continuationism/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726210130/http://www.jon-ruthven.org/On%20the%20Cessation%20of%20the%20Charismata.pdf to http://www.jon-ruthven.org/On%20the%20Cessation%20of%20the%20Charismata.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Cessationism versus Continuationism → Cessationism versus continuationism – Per MOS:CAPS § Religion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). –Ammarpad (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• This page has been moved back and forth because of this one letter, let's now discuss it. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support – In accordance with MOS:CAPS § Religion, the names of transdenominational and intradenominational theological movements and perspectives are not capitalized. See, e.g., biblical literalism, radical orthodoxy, evangelicalism, Christian reconstructionism, Christian universalism, liberation theology, Lutheran scholasticism. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Double vote is not allowed, sorry. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

There was no "double vote". For one thing, this is not a vote. And secondly, my "support" comment was my first comment in the RM – the statement from 16 April was merely a technical request, hence its brevity. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Historical evidence

The absence of any appeal to the earliest church fathers in this debate is remarkable. As it is clear that the first generation after the apostles had no doubt about the gifts persisting - most obviously with Justin Martyr's claim that 'the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time' Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Cpt 82. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge . Sirfurboy (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

---

@Ender's Shadow Snr, Dgpop, Editor2020, Darlig Gitarist, Theophil789, Yaki-gaijin, and VQuakr: I propose to merge Cessationism and Continuationism into Cessationism versus continuationism. We currently have three articles about one theological controversy, which does not serve readers well. We ought to bring everything into a single page. Cessationism can feed into a history of cessationism position and likewise continuationism. The description of the dispute itself is already all in here and there is duplication across the pages.

The pages were originally split when they became unwieldy. However they have now been substantially rewritten, and although more improvement is possible, it would also aid editors if they were working on a single page and not cross referencing with three. The resulting article should be of reasonable size once cross page duplication is redacted. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Editor2020 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge Completed

I have now merged these pages as per the merge discussion. The merge process was largely a copy paste (as per the merge instructions). The next step is to prune out some duplication between the merged history of cessationism, continuationism and the combined history already on this page. I will take a look at that soon (unless anyone else beats me to it). -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

John Calvin on Cessationism

The article is stating that John Calvin strongly taught Cessationism. In fact, there are no direct quotes from John Calvin stating that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the Sign Gifts, have ceased in the Church today. There are in fact, also, Charismatic Presbyterians, and Charismatics in every mainline denomination from the Reformation. The following points are stated in the article:

Cessationism – “It was when these miracles in the Catholic Church were used as a polemic against the post-Reformation Protestant churches that John Calvin began to develop a doctrine of cessationism..” Continuationism – “The Protestant Reformation saw the birth of a doctrine of cessationism within Calvinism that sought to deny that the gifts of the Holy Spirit persisted beyond the Apostolic Age.” History – “John Calvin wrote in a preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion that the primary purpose of miracles was to confirm divine revelation and affirm the Church's doctrine.”

The first two statements from the article under the topics, Cessationism and Continuationism, are stated as fact without any Reference supports to the claims. It seems to be written by a person that is coming from the Cessationist viewpoint without any reference support that John Calvin believes that way.

The final statement in the History topic states that in a preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin states "that the primary purpose of miracles was to confirm divine revelation and affirm the Church's doctrine." It references a Cessationist making this statement without referencing the Preface themselves. One can look up the Preface to the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, and read it themselves, there is no mention of this conclusion at all in the Preface to the Institutes.

Extreme modern Cessationists are painting a false narrative that John Calvin was in the complete Cessationist Camp, all Gifts Ceasing, and the narrative is in fact false. John Calvin was not B.B. Warfield, just as John Calvin was dead for 54 years before the Synod of Dordt, and was not TULIP Reformed. There is no Reference to these statements. These Cessationist theologians should consider John Calvin's Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:5 "...there are at present great theologians, who declaim against them with furious zeal. As it is certain, that the Holy Spirit has here honored the use of tongues with never-dying praise, we may very readily gather, what is the kind of spirit that actuates those reformers, (813) who level as many reproaches as they can against the pursuit of them." Easeltine (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

agreed, consider the following also: In his study of Ephesians 4:11, Calvin calls evangelists and pastors part of the “ordinary office in the church” (1056, §4.3.4). In contrast, apostles and prophets are extraordinary offices. Calvin explains further, “the Lord raised up the first three [apostles, prophets, and evangelists] at the beginning of his Kingdom, and now and again revives them as the need of the times demands” (1056, §4.3.4). For Calvin, God specially gifted the church with apostles, prophets, and evangelists at its foundation. And from time to time, God revives these offices when the need arises. In his day, Calvin perceives God as reviving the role of apostle (or perhaps evangelist). We know this because he indirectly calls Martin Luther an apostle: “Still, I do not deny that the Lord has sometimes at a later period raised up apostles, or at least evangelists in their place, as has happened in our own day” (1057, §4.3.4) Yet these extraordinary offices are not the norm. They are exceptional and for special occasions (e.g., like the Reformation or at the foundation of the church). The regular offices, pastors and teachers, are offices that “the church can never go without” (1057, §4.3.4). Atyourpais (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC); also note, I stole this info from a blog, https://wyattgraham.com/did-john-calvin-believe-that-some-spiritual-gifts-ceased/

Concepts or Controversy?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus on splitting the pages and thereby undoing the merger that found consensus in 2020. Felix QW (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

---

Should encyclopedic content be ruled by the summarising of concepts, or warring controversy? I would suggest the former, but it depends on whether the purpose of the article is to teach a history of the controversy or give an explanation of the concepts. While it is true that Christians have significantly disagreed over the associated issues for arguably at least several hundred years, I question whether it has really been an overly helpful move to merge the formerly separate articles a couple of years ago. Therefore, I propose either a revert, or at least another splitting, of this article for the following reasons:

• I am a little puzzled by an apparent fairly major edit from User:Theophilius, who way back in 2010 and seemingly without further independent discussion, reduced the article space owing to its then file size, reducing the reported file size by between 1/3 and 1/2, as the only explicitly provided premise for justifying the content squashing; and this was with no elaboration on what was actually removed and why. Has anyone actually looked through the revision history properly to verify exactly what went on here and whether such a move was necessarily, entirely appropriate? I am wondering how much this editor may really have known, not just about readability but also about technology in general. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What does the file size have to do with the content? It may or may not have made the article more difficult to read but most certainly wouldn't make it lowed much if any slower in a web-browser. What on earth is going on here?
• One of the very great dangers of merging the articles was (and is) that the structure and tone or the article as a whole may potentially appeal to Continuationists, who may, upon reading the asociated merged article, receive confirmation bias for themselves, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the views of Cessationists should not be considered to have substantial theological merrit, particularly owing to its apparently relative historical-theological recency. For this reason, there are probably legitimate questions of neutral point of view that may need to be asked, or even answered here. As per the included template, the article does appear to have a comunity-driven concern of non-encyclopedic tone.

Unfortunately, I suspect that some editors may have had a relative amount of free-range with the potentially abused content of this article, owing to its very niche audience of theologians and some theologisers like myself. Ideally, I think we still should have three articles:

Sessationism

an unbiased conceptual discussion on what the theologicalview and any of its offshoots entail

Continuationism

an unbiased conceptual discussion on what the theologicalview and any of its offshoots entail

Cessationism and Continuationism (Controversy)

an unbiased historical overview of the Disagreements in terms of what has occurred and maybe explanations of why these disagreements exist, drawn from reliable and independent sources. This third title merely lists the concepts in alphabetical order.

I know this would make the articles a lot smaller but I really strongly believe that this is a much better way to go. Although, having said that, I wonder if the articles might become bigger if one takes into account the edit done by the aforementioned editor? Njsch (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I proposed the merger in 2020. The three pages we had all had multiple issues that needed addressing, some of which persist. You can see old versions of the merged from articles here [1] and here,[2] All three articles were written as essays and did not meet Wikipedia quality standards. They were not bad as essays by the writer, but they were not encyclopaedic and sourcing was a problem (and even remains so now). All three needed rewriting to Wikipedia quality standards. In particular they needed to be in wikivoice.

When I came to look at this, I read through all three essays and found that there was a huge amount of overlap between them. This was understandable as continuationism only really makes sense as a theological position when seen in opposition to cessationism. Until there was a doctrine of cessationism, a doctrine of continuationism would simply be the default position. Thus writing the history of one is to write the history of another, and then the history of the controversy just rehashes the same ground again. There was a huge amount of duplication.

There was another problem, which is that when editors edited one page they could not be relied upon to update the other. This then meant that sometimes the pages contradicted each other. This is very undesirable, and although by no means unique to these pages, bringing the pages together was certainly the best way to ensure that we have a consistency of treatment.

Logically the information all belongs together.

However you raise other issues, which we should take seriously. You ask: "Should encyclopedic content be ruled by the summarising of concepts, or warring controversy?" The answer to that is broader than this page, and Wikipedia has many articles describing controversies. I think the question here is whether there is anything to be said for either a doctrine of cessationism or continuationism that should be understood outside of the controversy of one vs the other. I am not convinced there is. Continuationism in particular only exists as a position because of the existence of cessationism. What we could discuss is a different page title, but we don't actually have "controversy" in there. We do have "versus". We could change "versus" to "and" perhaps, to show that these two positions go hand in hand but without the suggestion of controversy.

But in essence, the intent of this page *is* to summarise the concepts in an encylopaedic fashion. Splitting the pages will not aid that.

The other pertinent point you make is that the tone of the article may not be suitably NPOV. That is not something that is aided by splitting the articles. Indeed, splitting them divorces them from an adequate consideration of the counter point of view, and makes the combination controversy article much harder to write whilst remaining neutral. Rather, if there is bias in THIS article, then it is here we need to address the problem.

This article remains a long way from perfect. There is plenty of unsourced information and statements, and it still does not read properly in wikivoice. But remember that this is an encylopaedia article whose purpose is to educate the reader on the matter (what the positions are and what the debate is) and are not meant to persuade anyone to one position or the other. That is why the information all belongs together, and why I would strongly oppose splitting these articles once again. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comparison between Liberal-leaning and third-wave continualism (point 3 under differing views)

I don't think this comparison is entirely accurate. Whilst there are examples of using the gifts without the Bible, there are many Liberal churches that hold to a more naturalistic view and are cessationist as a result - i.e. don't hold to miraculous and supernatural gifts. Many third-wave continualists would also justify their position from scripture such as the events during Pentacost and throughout the book of Acts, and the prophecy in Joel 2 which arguably refers to all of God's people in the end times, not just the apostles Joshun (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but I am not sure exactly what you are opposing or proposing here. Maybe their is some oversight in the way that information is presented here in that we don't make it clear that anyone whose view is that no miracles happened would also be neither cessationist (miracles happened in the apostolic age and then ceased) or continuationist (miracles still happen). Does that need stating? If so we can work it in, although it does seem somewhat obvious. As for "third wave", I don't believe they have any novel view. They are continuationists and don't need special treatment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah wait, I found what you mean regarding liberalism. That appears to have been introduced by an editor here [3]. It is unsourced and I will remove it now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Definitions and Sourcing

I have deleted this:

Continuationism is a Christian theological belief that emphasizes "experiencing the person and work of the Holy Spirit, especially the gifts of the Spirit, including signs and wonders, prophecy and healing in their worship, discipleship, ministry, mission and evangelism."

I added in the better source needed, but on reflection, the quote is just from a web article where the writer says:

I would define Renewalist as those Pentecostal, Charismatic, Neo-charismatic and other movements, denominations, institutions, churches, groups, practices and individuals that put a primacy on experiencing the person and work of the Holy Spirit, ...

Although the author is himself Assistant Professor of Evangelization in the Heisel Chair at United Theological Seminary, and thus perfectly within his rights and a good authority to make such a statement, the article is just a magazine article. By no means the worst sourcing this article has or has had, but we need to be doing better. If he said it here, did he say it in a journal article? Nevertheless I would have let it stand except that the part missing from the quoted material in the article, as you see here, is that he is defining Renewalists, Pentecostals and Charismatics etc., but he is not defining Continuationism, which is a spectrum that includes these but is not limited to them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Maintenance Templates

The page has 3 maintenance templates:

• This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (September 2020)
• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (September 2020)
• This article possibly contains original research. (September 2020)

They were all added together and none have been addressed. But neither is there any discussion on this page of what the problems are or where. This is what I think are the problem areas:

1. Sections 6-8 (Points of dispute, the continuations response and implications) have a non encyclopaedic essay style. Those need rewriting and can perhaps be scaled back.
2. I think this probably also refers to the same sections, 6-8. A rewrite resolves the second flag too.
3. I don't know where the OR is supposed to be. As this has not been described by the editor who placed the template and it is not obvious, I am removing that template. Any editor may restore it but shoud explain the OR issue in talk so it can be addressed.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)