Talk:Cessationism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archived discussions from 2006 through 2010. Note: discussions may be refactored.

Discussion of Possible Rewrite

This article has some very good content, but its arrangement is rather haphazard, wordy, and lacking in citations. David L Rattigan 13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a cessationist, but I do understand the cessationist position, and am doing post-grad work on spiritual gifts, so have easy access to sources that can then be cited properly. As it stands, this article really is both poorly written and biased. I'd really like to tidy it up and present it in a way that is fair to cessationists, and not a weak charismatic critique of cessationism. To do so would require an extensive rewrite. Given the debate on these pages, what is the best way of doing that? Markbarnes 18:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark: are you still interested in doing this rewrite? The article certainly needs it. I was considering this as well, but do not have easy access to such sources. I would be interested in helping. In my opinion, the "best" presentation of the article would be a fair and comprehensive explanation of the cessationist position(s) 'without' any opposing view in the main text. I think a link in the lead to continuationism and a brief separate "Opposing View" section (with a main|continuationism link) would be both fair and sufficient. Also, I think the Biblical evidence section should be incorporated into a narrative, rather than the current point/counterpoint presentation. If this could be done well either in the "types of cessationists" section or in some kind of "history of" section, great. Otherwise, it would be better to simply have a new section expanding on the explanation in the lead than the non-NPOV sounding "Biblical evidence." This new section could be called "Rationale," "Explanation of the Position," or simply "The Position." SolaDeoGloria (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the interest of full disclosure: I am not a cessationist. However, I think it is in the best interest of the Truth for both positions to be explained as fully and accurately as possible, from a neutral point of view. SolaDeoGloria (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already provided a major change to the article. (I have saved the old page prior to the change in case there are objections to my changes). Before the change, article did not provide a fair account of Cessationism. A fair account would, for instance, provide an account of the principal rationale for Cessationism. There was no good classification of Cessationism, discusing only the Reformed views, not taking into account groups of Christians that stay outside of the Mainstream Christianity. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edits and depth of research are excellent. --Another berean (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

The article is informative but clearly shows that the author (of this article) believes in charismata in some form. The Critiques section mentions each critique but imediately dispells them, i.e. "Numerous other passages clearly teach that all spiritual gifts will continue to the Second Coming of Christ" This is the authors belief, not a cited rebuttle of the Charismatic movement. In general, the whole section suffers from the same problem and needs to be written in accordance with the NPOV policy. --Gregoryg72 11:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to work on this article. Gregoryg72, if you haven't already, please consider joining the Charismatic project (see link at top). David L Rattigan 16:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV concerns. This article is highly problematic and this is reflected in the bibliography. Vassyana 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the NPOV concerns. The Critiques of Continuationism reads like the Critiques of Cessationism. The article fails to mention that the great danger of continuationism is that it tends to under emphasise the importance of studying the Bible. Sprititual maturity, in my opinion, primarily comes from studying, memorizing and applying the Bible. Most people dont have the time for this, hence the popularity of the charismatic movement and over emphasis on sign gifts. The end days of course is characterised by apostasy as mentioned in Thessalonians. The section called "The word 'remain', in 1 Cor 13:13, only makes sense if something has ceased" was deleted, it had some very valid points. This indicates to me that the cessationist entry is primarily controlled by continuationists. --Another berean (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed notification about NPOV concerns after making a quite radical change to the Cessation Wiki Page. I have written from a Cessationist framework, since the page is about conveying the Cessationist perspective. The notification was 2 years old, and I see that there was not much work done in two years. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article, in the current form, presents the Cessationist perspective, written from a Cessationist framework. Nevertheless, it does not lack NPOV because it takes into account strong Continuationist objections. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

Charismatic penticostalism has 1 billion plus adherents? What nonsense is this? Thanatosimii 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) For more reliable figures, see Johnstone, P.J. & Mandryk, J. "Operation World" Paternoster Press (2001) P.J. Baker 80.175.135.49 20:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reference in the article to 1 billion plus adherents, so I'm not sure what the comment above is referencing. Perhaps, it was edited out of the article. I don't think the size of such adherents needs to be included, but for the purposes of these notes, Pew Research did extensive research on this in 2006. Their results found more than 500 million members of Pentecostal and charismatic groups worldwide. http://www.pewforum.org/surveys/pentecostal/ http://www.zenit.org/article-17978?l=english _____________________________________

According to a Harris poll, 89% of Americans affirm that "Even today God performs miracles by his power." This claim doesn't even LOOK credible. 89 percent? Really? I vote for this line to be deleted unless the citation can be provided.

_____________________________________

Wrong poll cited. It's The Harris Poll® #11, February 26, 2003 http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359 The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003 Many people believe in miracles (89%), the devil (68%), hell (69%), ghosts (51%), astrology (31%) and reincarnation (27%)

http://jeksite.org/psi/motivation.htm The most widely held beliefs about paranormal phenomena involve supernatural religious interpretations and are not included in these scales. In U.S. national surveys, 89% of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that "there is a God who watches over you and answers your prayers" (Barna, 1991) and 82% agreed that "even today, miracles are performed by the power of God" (Gallup & Castelli, 1989). Measures that do not capture the most widely held beliefs may be of limited value in understanding the characteristics of paranormal beliefs.

we could leave it in if it was followed by the line that 89% of americans are retards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.212.160 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that includes "generally perceived to be in retreat" looks like weasel words to me. Perceived by whom? DFH 19:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Preserved text:

Cessationism, however, is a doctrine that is generally perceived to be in retreat even among conservative and Evangelical Christians. Among theologians more to the left, cessationism is a non-issue. According to a Harris poll (#11, Feb. 2003), 89% of Americans affirm the reality of modern miracles. The explosive growth of charismatic Pentecostalism (those who believe and practice the so-called "extra-ordinary" or "miraculous" spiritual gifts), approaching one billion adherents world-wide, has largely undercut the appeal of cessationism.

---

I have been able to find no evidence that cessationism is "in retreat", especially among conservatives and Evangelicals. (Their continuing criticisms against continuationism and continuing revelation among the LDS, Pentecostals and others seems to contradict this assertion.) Belief in miracles is an improper measure. Do these people believe the miracles come from G-d? Do they believe in continuing revelation? Do these people believe they are gifts of the Holy Spirit? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked to narrow the field of respondants to those who actually believe a contrary viewpoint. Additionally, the Pentecostalism article clearly shows the adherents figure to be overinflated by at least a factor of six. Overall, this is a Charismatic POV paragraph with highly inaccurate information and no sourcing except for a poll that is not even applicable due to the overly broad nature of the question. So, I removed it. Vassyana 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If "charismatic-Pentecostalism" refers to a larger movement than classical Pentecostalism--including those who believe in continuing "miraculous" gifts of the Spirit--then the "approaching one billion adherents" is not out of line at all according to the latest data from the World Christian Encyclopedia (David Barrett, ed.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.58.211 (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In contradiction to the claims of "retreat", one of the external links (A look at cessationism from a non-cessationist POV) states:

"Most mainline Protestants, and nearly all Fundamentalists, are 'cessationists', whether they are fully aware of it or not."

Just pointing out the provided sources/links are not in harmony with the claims of the removed section.Vassyana 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

Removed Power Religion from the bibliography. It is a critique of the modern charismatic movement rather than an argument for cessationism, per se. DA Carson is certainly a continuationist (see Showing the Spirit) and I think Packer and Boice have similar views. David L Rattigan 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I do not see the purpose of the Bibliography at all, as it stands. It makes the article seem more like a position paper than an encyclopedia entry. How is it that there is a bibliography with over fifty publications and the article contains nary a one citation?! Have none of the authors involved with the article actually read the books in question, or are those books useless in providing information on the topic? SolaDeoGloria (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

I thought this was a pretty well written article. The person writing may be partial to pentecostalism but, that does not prevent an individual from explaining the views of cessationalism. I think that one of the best books for researching this subject is called "Are Miraculous Gifts for Today" Edited by Grudem. This book contains an overview of the four main views and gives one respected scholar in each view the chance to explain their view and then gives each of the other three authors the chance to respond.

Last edited at 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Definition(s)

Of Miracle

As with many religious discussions, part of the problem is that positions which disagree with each other, frequently define the term Miracles differently. Some would use the term 'Miracles" to refer to any supernatural act. Others would state that some supernatural acts fall under the definition of the term while others do not.

For example, within my own belief system a miracle has to be 1. Humanly Observable 2. Significant (or indicative) and 3. Creates Wonder or Amazement. Therefore, it would be argued that God intervened in Hannah's conception of Samuel and also in the Jews deliverance from Haman but since no humans observed what God did to make these events occur, these supernatural acts can not be described as a miracle.

My own belief system is Cessationist, but those of us who believe this way still believe that God acts in ways that are similar to the two examples which I cited in the previous paragraph.

Other Cessationists may disagree with this viewpoint. My knowledge of the entire spectrum of cessationist views is very limited.

Therefore, I propose a section in which as many diverse Cessationist definitions of the term "miracle" as can be compiled be listed and explained.

--Shewmaker 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that definition of miracle is key, but even more so is the purpose of miracle. It is my conviction that the scriptures consistently point to Scripture as authenticating those who in fact speak for God (cf. Heb 2:3-4), i.e. prophets. They also are intended to serve as eschatalogical signs, pointers to the intrusion of the kingdom of God. These two features are really one, since the appearance of a prophet is itself an eschatological event. As the purposes of God are unfolded in history, He sends his messengers and authenticates their ministry with miracles. While miracles do in fact help individuals, their primary purpose is to be signs pointing to the future fulfilment of the kingdom. This is clear because those who rise from the dead, like Lazarus, still die eventually. Those who are healed still die eventually. But the powers of the kingdom are demonstrated so that we may see our hope of final fulfilment when all God's enemies will be destroyed, epitomized by the destruction of Satan and death itself. This kind of background structure, more so than proof-texting, is essential to understand the cessationist position. The Bible is full of examples of counterfeit miracle workers whose goal is to deceive the saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.214.238 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The main page includes:

According to a Harris poll, 89% of Americans affirm that "Even today God performs miracles by his power."

This is not the same issue as the cessation of the extraordinary gifts listed in the NT. Even many cessationists do not deny that God can today work miracles, though others would classify such events as examples of extraordinary divine providence. The issue in cessationism is whether men and women of today have gifts that enable them to work miracles, such as healing, etc. DFH 09:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• • This is hair-splitting. Warfield's definitive work of cessationism had a great deal of trouble articulating just what a "miracle" is. It seems to have been circular and might be expressed as: "A miracle is a remarkable event of divine proof which can rationally be identified that establishes, and therefore adds, new doctrine to the New Testament." Since no new chapters to the book of Jude are being added these days, it perforce follows that there can be no "miracles." Absurd as it is, this seems to be Warfield's position. See Ruthven, On the Cessation of the Charismata, 44-77.

Of Prophecy

The Puritans wrote extensively on all manner of subjects relating to the Christian faith, including some topics that touch on the modern debate about cessationism. It is important however to note that they often used the word Prophesying where today we would normally use the word Preaching. DFH 09:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you cite some sources for the above claim? Thanks--66.215.152.125 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

william perkins, the art of prophesying. it is, as dfh says, about preaching. perkins considers prophesying to be preaching which is intelligent, faithful, impassioned, and Spirit-led. for a bit of a non-sequitur, perkins use of the word prophesy is interesting to the cessationism debate because it highlights that Reformed language has not always been as sterile and scientific as it tends to be in our post-enlightenment time, when a word like prophesying can only mean one thing, i.e. recording Scripture. Chadbald (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

MISC

I edited in the following to Critiques of cessationism and it was promptly reverted; I would like to know why.

It is curious to note that if apostles and prophets no longer exist, 1 Cor. 12:28 could be interpreted to put teachers in "first position". The fact that many people who argue for Cessationism are teachers is, not in and of itself a bad thing, but it does tend to be a warning sign. What do teachers have to gain from being the "top authority"?

In particular, I think it is important to examine possible motivations to take certain stances -- what does the party holding the stance have to gain from said stance. Is this not something documented on WP? --Labreuer (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Labreuer asked me to comment here. It should only be documented here if it's documented in the scholarly literature. I reverted this, and stand by the content of the edit summary,[1] (though not the tone, which I acknowledge is needlessly snarky). Our pages are supposed to be summaries of what the experts have published. We can't have people reading the Bible and writing up their thoughts for inclusion in the encyclopedia, unless those people are recognized authorities on the topic, and those thoughts have been published. Otherwise, I have no opinion on how this article should develop. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed some blatantly biased language throughout the article: words such "clearly," "obviously," and "blatantly," which often prefaced anti-cessationist counterpoints. March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.205.32 (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This article needs an opposing views section.

I agree. Also, there needs to be some reference to how Isaiah said that this would happen as a sign to the Jews for only a short time. Will reference later.

When you make that reference please also include an explanation on Joel 2:28 that explains that the Holy Spirit will be poured out for all, young and old, men and women. I bigmac (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Many cessationists believe complete fulfillment of Joel 2:28 takes place after the rapture of the Church, and partial fulfillment took place in the early days of the Church. There are many ways of interpretating, that is generally the cessationist interpretation. --Another berean (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of arguing endlessly, the article should maybe explain what the positions of Churches are. I gather that most Churches do not believe that God has abandoned them, and that the Holy Spirit continues to help them in the world today. ADM (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally support the cessationist position for the following reasons :- 1. Groups deemed to be non Christian, such as the Mormons, believe they also have the sign gifts. A lot of self and group deception is taking place. 2. The gifts are over-emphasised, with the Bible often taking secondary importance. In a world where many people have little to no free time, it is easier to demonstrate ones spirituality by the displaying of sign gifts. Personally I prefer keeping my feet on the ground and spending time with the Bible. 3. From personal observation, if I can make a generalisation without being seen to be offensive, I find cessationalists have holier lifestyles than their charismatic counterparts. 4. From personal observation, having spent a number of years in a Charismatic church, no spectacular healing was ever observed. It was more a case of people with ailments such as bad backs being cured. Take a look at the Benny Hinn section for faking of miracles.

Having said all the above, Smith Wigglesworth knew his Bible, lived a holy life and had spectacular sign gifts.

Personally though, I think it is wiser to hold a cessationist position due to the reasons stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Another berean (talk • contribs) 12:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Christian, why not simply follow the position that you believe is most consistent with the Bible? As a wikipedian, what does this have to do with the article (unless this is your disclosure of POV)? Cheers, SolaDeoGloria (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Is there any good reason to have separate articles on Continuationism and Cessationism when they're both discussing exactly the same controversy? Chonak (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree — it would be much better to have the arguments on a single page. 207.145.38.73 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Initially, I would say that this is a bad idea. If the cessation article could include a lucid, NPOV explanation of the continuationist position, the two articles could be merged. Right now the cessationist article suffers from non-NPOV issues because it is trying to tell both stories in the same breath. It seems very difficult for either article to maintain NPOV, which would be exacerbated if there were only one, merged article attempting to cover both positions.

As it is, both articles need a good thorough cleanup to include citations and eliminate NPOV. If one article were proposed that would meet the needs of both, I would be in favor, but the best current course of action seems to be cleaning up the individual articles. If at some point they can be merged favorably, good. But for now it seems more reasonable to try to fix up the individual articles SolaDeoGloria (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia entry, this article goes on at far too much length with "cessationists argue, continuationists reply, to which cessationists reply" etc. Without venturing too far down the path of attributing dastardly motives to well-intentioned and knowledgeable contributors, the entry as it stands on 3/16/2009 reads as though committed advocates of both camps keep extending the article because neither can bear to see the other make an unanswered argument.

What's needed in an encyclopedia, I would think, is a succinct summary of cessationism, perhaps a very brief synopsis of its major flavors, some explanation of the circumstances of its historical genesis, a reference and link to the entry on continuationism. Finally, links to references outside Wikipedia for further study should replace the lengthy back and forth in the entry as it now stands which to my mind at least makes the entry seem more strident and argumentative than appropriate in the Wikipedia context.

I would not advocate merging entries on cessationism and continuationism because they are concerned with the same controversy, any more than I would advocate merging entries on Christianity and Islam because they are both concerned with monotheistic religion, or merging entries on Platonism and Aristotelianism because they are both concerned with classical Greek philosophy.

Douglas Barber (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see an objection to my merger proposal. If I understand what cessationism and continuationism are, they are exact counterparts of each other; they are the two poles of the same controversy, in a way which is not true of Christianity and Islam or Platonism and Aristotelianism. On the other hand, I agree with your observations about the state of the article and the back-and-forth argument in it. Chonak (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Chonak (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason I objected (and did so almost as an afterthought) concerns ease of use for what I picture to be the typical Wikipedia user - someone who comes across the word "cessationism" in this case, doesn't know for sure what it means, and types "cessationism wiki" into a search engine. I just think that they're more directly served by being linked to an entry on precisely their topic of interest, and in rare cases might be confused if linked to an entry on anything other than cessationism.

Your proposed merger would certainly be more elegant than two separate entries, using "elegance" to mean "gracefully concise and simple; admirably succinct". I'd certainly hope for such elegance in the syllabus or course outline for a class on "theological disputes arising from the Reformation", whereas I'm inclined to go for "ease of use" for Wikipedia.

I don't have strong feelings on this point and hope I'm not disrupting something you do feel strongly about - I'd happily edit my original discussion to withdraw my objection on this merger matter, and of course our subsequent discussion, if you like. Douglas Barber (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to revise. Perhaps there ought to be a combined article under a title like "Cessationism and Continuationism", and make both terms redirect to it. But I don't know enough about the topic to do the job, really. Chonak (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that a Merger proposal is a good idea. Most visitors would like to know what Cessationism is about, and it is important to give a fair account from a Cessationist point of view, explaining the Cessationist perspective. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

I have deleted the section about cessationist response to modern phenomena for the following reasons: it is unsourced, has been flagged as unsourced for some time, is potentially inflammatory, and is arguably non NPOV. I do believe it could be worked back into the article with good documentation. However, it would still need to be reworded to properly explain the cessationist view and what "contemporary phenomena" entails.SolaDeoGloria (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the original text:

Many streams of the church today, notably from the Pentecostal and charismatic streams, still point to examples of the manifestation of the charismatic gifts. Since these modern-day manifestations contradict the theory of Cessationism, the adherents of Cessationism take the approach of dismissing such examples as being exaggerated, misrepresented, fraudulent, or as originating from the devil or, at least, not instigated by the God of the Bible.

I removed this section from the article. See Wikipedia:NPOV to get an idea how to write articles with a neutral point of view. This is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson. I like to saw logs! (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I removed the section "The word remain only makes sense if something has ceased" because this is all original research, not a NPOV, from the author of a website who is trying to publish on Wikipedia. I only moved it here to indicate that it wasn't perhaps complete trash, but it does not fit into any of the goals of an encyclopedia. The below views are not sourced and cited, they are from the original author: his opinion, his teaching, his ideas, his views, his Sunday School lesson, etc. I like to saw logs! (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The word 'remain', in 1 Cor 13:13, implies that something has been removed and 1 Cor 13:8 tells us that tongues, prophecy and knowledge are the things which will cease or fade away. 1 Cor 13:13 says that faith, hope and love will still remain after these items are gone. So clearly there is a time when the three items of 1 Cor 13:8 disappear and after that time faith, hope and love continue on. The word 'remain' would make no grammatical sense unless something else did not remain.

2 Cor 5:7 says, “We live by faith, not by sight.” Heb 11:1 says, “faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see” and “hope that is seen is no hope at all” (Rom 8:24). So when we see Jesus, and are made perfect, our faith and hope will be fulfilled and then only love will remain. Faith is one of the gifts (1 Cor 12:9) and, like the other gifts, it will not continue into eternity. From this it can be seen that the timing for the cessation of tongues, prophecy and knowledge is separate from the time of Jesus' return or our perfection. Tongues, prophecy and knowledge were singled out to disappear while faith and hope remain until Jesus returns. It is not possible for the three gifts of v.8 to remain along with our faith and hope. Why? Because that would be saying that the things to cease will remain until the things that remain cease. (All other gifts must still be with us as there is no mention of them ceasing).

The term 'that which is perfect' (and verses 9-10 overall) clearly fits the Bible because:

1) It is a genderless 'thing' through which a believer can mature in Christ.

2) The word 'perfect' can be translated 'complete' or 'finished', describing the Bible.

3) The Bible was 'in part' and its completion was dependant upon the two 'in part' gifts in these verses.

4) These two gifts were required, since Genesis, for the inspired writing of Scriptures.

5) The Bible completed God's revelation to man and did away with the need for the in-part, imperfect gifts.

6) Prophecy and knowledge must have ceased otherwise man could still add to the Word.

RESPONSE... you are overlooking the obvious. Whenever Pual used the term perfect elsewhere, he was never talking about the Bible's completion, unless you count 2 Tim 3:15-17, in which case he was exogesically referring to the books of the Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi), but no where do we see him expounding on this notion that the compolation of books written by various church figures would be compiled a century or two down the road and their completion triggering some ceasing on the Holy Spirit's part of His work in the church. We do, however, see an overwhelming amount of discourse from Paul on the subject of the Lord's return, where "perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality" (ch 15:53) and in his later letter to the same church "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal" (4:18) Even this discourse in chapter 13 was a contrast of the temporary imperfect with the eternal perfect, starting out in verses 1-3 with a montage of comparisions between temporary things only needed in this life (speaking in tongues, faith that moves mountains, giving to the poor, sacrificing one's self to the flames) to the eternal (love and it's attributes described in verses 4-8) and then the subject only continues through the rest of the chapter and through the rest of the book. The two 'in part' gifts refered to in these passages describes all that we can know until Jesus comes again. We can only know in part and we can only prophesy in part. The prophecies in Revelation are not completed or perfected and therefore passed away. They have yet to happen, they still apply to us today. Even when they do happen, will we not have to have the meaning of the verses explained to us in detail just as the apostles required after the Lord's, death burial and resurection? They had every prophesy that God ever would give about the coming Messiah, yet they did not contain a perfect knowledge of how it would all pan out. They needed it explained to them in great detail (Luke 24:25-28). Even now, the canon of the Bible is complete, yet we ourselves are in need of interacting with the Holy Spirit to understand it. It's truths are hidden (ch2:6-9) in mysteries that, again, Paul refers to heaven as being a time of FULL revelation for these things. We need the Holy Spirit's interaction. This has not passed away. His Spirit still bears witness with ours (Ro 8:16)and leads us into all truth. Having the written word of God alone is not enough. Never has been. The Pharisees had it memorized backwards and forwards, but without the Spirit of God there will be no fruit. The Spirit's ongoing revelation to us is not to add to the scripture, but to reveal it's truths. In the next chapter, when Paul instructed the Corinthian church on properly prophesying, he did not command that these prophesies were a means to add to the canon of scripture. There were other places in the Bible where prophesies and revelations were given to men and they were not instructed to add these revelations to the canon of scripture. The term "canon of scripture" itself is isogesical gray area, since it is unclear just how much the writers grasped the magnitude of their writings. Paul did aknowledge that he was writing the divine commands of God [ch 14:37], but knowing that his writings would go on to become a greater part of what we term the "new testament" whose collective completion would signify the end of much of the content and commands contained within the writings themselves as supposed by cessationists, is unclear from these writings of these men. By the way, faith, like love, is eternal as the passage notes. Teh faith we have for salvation is temporary and will be fulfilled wehn we see the Lord, but the greater concept of faith is not confined to this worldly life we live, seeing that God Himself has it (Heb 11:3) ...so the word "remain" makes perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.131.166 (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a large portion of the article. Before removing anything, I have saved the old version. Following sections were removed: Biblical evidence for Cesationism, Critique of Cessationism, Critique of Continuationism. My reason for removing these parts was that the writer(s) did not give a fair presentation of Cessationist rationale motive. Instead they provided simple biblical quotations "out from the blue" that would supposedly support Cessationism. My impression was that the writer(s) were biased trying to defend Continuationism. I think that it is misplaced to defend Continuationism in a page where it is expected to provide a fair presentation of the Cessationist perspective. As a Cessationist, I found the writer(s) arguments for Cessationism very weak. The same goes for objections against Cessationism. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed old notifications, dating back from 2008, about NPOV concern, questions about references,and request for expert help. There was not much work done with Cessationism page from November 2009. SolaDeoGloria said that the article is going through major rewriting, but it seems that the work is going too slow, since SolaDeGlori's notification is dating from November 2009. I decided not to wait and make extensive changes to the article. If there are objections to my changes, please contact me so that we can discuss the changes. I am open for your comments. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the section "Miracles in Church History" for three reasons: (1) this article is about Cessationism and not about Continuationism, (2) References are mostly to Continuationist works and (3) the same bibliogrpahic references can be found in the Wikipedia article Continuationism#References under subsection "Studies on Miracles in History." Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the link A look at cessationism from a non-cessationist POV for two reasons: (1) it does not properly address the main Cessationist objection, namely the contention that Continuationism is incompatible with Sola Scriptura, and (2) it rather conveys Continuationist perspective why the gifts have not ceased. As such, its proper place is rather in the page about Continuationism. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Added sections

I have added an account of various classifications of Cessationism. Before my addition, there was a previous classification of Cessationism in four types. I identified this classification as a classification with regard to the question of the presence of miracles, healing. This was not deleted, but just slightly rewritten with some clarification, and adapted to my addition. My addition was two classifications of Cessationism: (1) one with regard to the question of reemergence of the gifts and (2) with regard to the types of justification of Cessationism.

I have added the second section, "Main issues in the dispute between Continuationist and Cessationists." Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

COI

I've added a COI (Conflict of Interest) tag. This is because a a major editor User:Theophil789 seems to be signed "Aleksandar Katanovic" and a lot of the cited external references are to articles by "Aleksandar Katanovic". I don't know nearly enough about the topic to be able to judge whether this COI is actually a problem or not. But it would be useful if those with a knowledge of the topic and the field and its researchers could help assess whether or not there might be a genuine COI. (Or whether I made have made a bad mistake!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cessationism should be seen in the context of disputes about the charismatic gifts, particularly Cessationism versus Continutionism. We have a Wikipedia page about Continutionism, where the Continuationist perspective is conveyed. The same applies for the Wikipedia page about Cessationism, where it is conveyed the Cessationis perspetive. I think that people would like to know what are the strengths and weaknesses for each view. I am a Cessationist who are very familiar with the dispute about Carimatic gifts. My aim was to convey the Cessationist perspective, which would also involve its rationale foundation. For this reason, it is perhaps a challenge to have absolutelly neutral point of view when trying to represent one side of the dispute. I tried to convey the strongest Continuationist arguments and Cessationist objections against these arguments.

Would this disqualify me as a person to write about Cessationism? I think that it is legitime to convey either a pro-cessationist or pro-continuationist perspective as long as the opposite view is also fairly represented. Perhaps I have not conveyed stronger Continuationist arguments?

It is true that many of referrences point to my article about Charismatic gifts, but my article introduces new concepts within the Cessationist framework, such as a conceptual distinction between empirical and principled Cessationism, strong versus moderate Cessationism, etc. There is not much discussions among Cessationists regarding the eschatological restoration of gifts or about the types of justification for Cessationism, which my article addresses. Would this represent COI? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, for the reply. Yes the relationship between Cessationism and Continuationism does need exploring. My worry is that you, as an editor, and putting in multiple references to your own work. That's the COI bit. Your last paragraph says "but my article introduces new concepts within the Cessationist framework". That actually introduces a new, additional problem: original research. I think we probably need advice from others.

As a separate topic, namely the contrast between the topics of Cessationism and Continutionism (leaving aside COI and OR issues), it might be useful if the two articles could be re-thought, perhaps as a single article that could present both topics. I wonder whether that might work?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There were talk about merger proposals; I do not think that it will work because the issue is too complex. According to Wikipedia guidlines: "Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects." (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV ) Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Original Research, yes, that could be a problem unless there are denominations, churches or groups of Christians who subscribe to the ideas of which my article describes. Cessationism is not just an academic view, but a belief shared by common Christians. For instance, some group of house churches such as Free Brethren House Churches hold to Cessationist beliefs. However, such churches are not as Reformed churches. For this reason, they have a different view on Cessationism. Also there are other groups, outside of the Mainstream Christianity, that was mentioned in my article, that also have quite a different view on Cessationism than the one which is commonly hold among Cessationists from Reformed Churches. Thus, if we shall give a fair and informative account of Cessationism, all these facts should be mentioned. My article is not just a research paper, but rather an expression of these groups of Cessationist Christians not belonging to the Mainstream Christianity. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be madness if all the recent excellent edits were taken away. The editor of the recent edits is obviously an authority on the matter. No doubt the Continuationists are alarmed and want to destroy a quality article and revert it back to a poor quality entry biased heavily against Cessationism. --Another berean (talk) 12:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now updated some of the references that pointed to my article. They refer now to other Cessationist works. Nevertheless, I have only kept 7 references to my article, but which I do not find problematic because 5 of these references are with regard to Moderate Cessationism that is hold by some Christian groups outside the Mainstream Christianity. I do not find any harm to mention Moderate Cessationism because it is mentioned in the context of a classification of Cessationist positions or with regard to the Moderate interpretation of 1 Cor 13:11 (an interpretation that would be readily accepted by the majority of Continuationists) and, as such, it is a neutral account. The other two references to my article are two quotations containing Cessationist argumentations. These arguments are examples of Cessationist argumentations, and no Cessationist would find them objectionable. In my account of the dispute, I used arguments that all Cessationists would not have a problem with. If there is a problematic reference to my article, I will aks that you point out the reference in question and explain why it is problematic. If I find that the concern is valid, I will replace it with another source. I think that the COI concern is resolved with the update of my references and, therefore, I will now remove COI-label. If there is still some COI concern, please let me know. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Split article

Sorry to interrupt, but I think the "Dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists" should have it's own page. It will make this article much easier to read. If there isn't too much objection, I will do it in the next week or so. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the topic. Do you mean that the second part of Cessationism, Main issues in the dispute between Continuationists and Cessationists, should have its own page? The second part is related to the first part because some terms from the first part are repeated in the second. Moreover, my contribution gave an account of the dispute more from a Cessationist point of view. If we shall make a new page "Dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists," we need also a Continuationist who could refined more of the Continuationist arguments in order to have a fair and balanced account of the dispute. We also have a wikipedia page Continuationism, so people can become familiar with Continuationism from a Continuationist point of view. If you make changes, can you please notify me of changes by contacting me at my Wikipedia talk page? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aleksander. If I have time I will leave a comment on your page. Otherwise, just click on the setting to "Watch" this page and you'll be notified immediately of any changes I make. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The article has improved significantly and believe that Aleksandar Katanovic should be the main driver of the article until it is deemed finished or someone with the same depth of knowledge also commences editing. --Another berean (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here, Berean. I'm not going to delete anything. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to move a section of some article, and thus removing it from a specific context, to another isolated place without the proper consent of the author of the section. In so doing, the section can be distorted and lose the original meaning, as this was in this case. By moving it to a new page, the section lost its neutrality because my account was written from the Cessationist framework. Its proper place is within a page that gives an account of the Cessationist perspective. Moreover, it is good to analyze and evaluate some arguments from one of the disputant's point of view. That's why we have two independent pages Continuationism and Cessationism that offer, from their respective frameworks, an account of the dispute about the charismatic gifts. I am not sure why did you find the article difficult to read? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you just did remove something from the page. --Another berean (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted Aleksandar Katanovic via his email link on his talk page. I am unsure about all the wiki rules, but I am sure respect to Alexanders reasonable request may be covered by one of them. --Another berean (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put back the content that was moved. Here are my reasons why the "split" was not good. First, the title "Cessation-continuation debate" is wrong. It should be called "Cessationism versus Continuationism." It is not a dispute between "cessation" and "continuation," but about two views called "Cessationism" and "Continuationism." Second, the account given about the dispute was written from a Cessationist point of view. If we should have a new page dealing with the dispute, there should be both Continuationists and Cessationists present as contributors. Third, I prefer that there are rather two independent pages conveying their respective perspectives. If, for instance, one is curious about Continuationism, then it is best to go to the page that informs people about Continuationism from the Continuationist point of view. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think moving the content back to this article was the correct move, since copying it out appears to be a WP:POVFORK. I am nominating the Cessation-continuation debate article for deletion. Regards! Jminthorne (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I added the unreliable sources label because that early-church.com website doesn't seem to be a reliable source. We should try to gather a variety of sources that can verify the same information lest we head into a one-source article... Yaki-gaijin (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect your real motives is that you do not believe in Cessationism and want to revert it back to the state before Alexandar started his editing.--Another berean (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation is petty. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now updated some of the references that pointed to my article. They refer now to other Cessationist works. Nevertheless, I have only kept 7 references to my article, but which I do not find problematic because 5 of these references are with regard to Moderate Cessationism that is hold by some Christian groups outside the Mainstream Christianity. I do not find any harm to mention Moderate Cessationism because it is mentioned in the context of a classification of Cessationist positions or with regard to the Moderate interpretation of 1 Cor 13:11 (an interpretation that would be readily accepted by the majority of Continuationists) and, as such, it is a neutral account. The other two references to my article are two quotations containing Cessationist argumentations. These arguments are examples of Cessationist argumentations, and no Cessationist would find them objectionable. In my account of the dispute, I used arguments that all Cessationists would not have a problem with. If there is a problematic reference to my article, I will aks that you point out the reference in question and explain why it is problematic. If I find that the concern is valid, I will replace it with another source. I think that the reliability concern is resolved with the update of my references and, therefore, I will now remove reliability-label. If there is still some reliability concern, please let me know. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the reliability-tag is again added. Please tell which source appears to be unreliable. I am removing the label, but if there are such concerns, please give an explanation in this discussion page. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Aleksander Katanovic is cited 7 or 8 times in this article. Is he some kind of expert? He's not listed anywhere on the internet except on Facebook and the website www.early-church.com. Early-church.com and Biblestudying.net are used as sources throughout the article. These websites are not reliable sources and Mr. Katanovic is also not a published expert. And these are just some of the sources that need to be verified. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You should have looked more carefully why these references were made to my web article. Have you also read my explanation about these references? My web article talks about Moderate Cessationism and it was published by a site owned by Moderate Cessationists. One does not need to be an expert in order to give an account of some position to which one subscribes to.

I have 8 references to my article. 5 of these are references to Moderate Cessationism. 2 of these are to examples of Cessationist arguments that no Cessationist would object to. And there is one to my explanation of the gifts, so that I did not need to write it in the body of the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article is, as you have noted, a lengthy one. The reference was coupled with an additional reference to another source supporting my explanation of the gifts. So, I have only 2 of 61 references pointing to my article that are of an argumentative character. The other 6 are neutral and reliable in so far that they point to a site subscribing to Moderate Cessationism.

The same consideration applies to the biblestyding.net. Why would it be a problem to point out their site as a representative of Empirical Cessationism, when they in fact have defined the concept of "Conditional Cesationism"? I think that it is quite informative to point out Christian Cessationist sites that subscribe to various positions of Cessationism. So, frankly, I cannot understand why would this be an unreliable source. The source is verifable because you can simply contact them and ask if they believe so and so.

I think that the question of reliability should not be an issue if the references are meant to point out sites or group of people who have such and such beliefs. The references are not made in the sense that one makes an appeal to an authority, but rather as a reference to the factual state of affairs, in this case groups of people who subscribe to various Cessationist positions. It was given more in an informative style and not in a polemic one. Therefore, I find it strange that you object about this kind of information concerning a great variety of positions within Cessationist framework, which can be verified by asking those people whether they believe so and so. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2 websites and Mr. Katanovic are not authorities on the topic, and nothing about them is verifiable. There is no thrid-party literature mentioning either of these websites or this guy. How is that so hard to understand? For someone as "literate" as you, you'd think you'd be able to understand the simple fact that atleast 3 of your sources are unreliable and can't be verified through 3rd party sources.Yaki-gaijin (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I fear that I have to repeat myself. The qustion of reliability should not be an issue if the references are meant to point out sites or groups of people who are holding such and such beliefs. Is it a requirement that these people are authorities on the beliefs they subscribe to? Do you see my point? Your concern about reliability is valid if my references were made as an appeal to some authority. But this is not the case here.

Have you contacted early-church.com and biblestudy.net? If you make a contact with these groups of Christians, for instance with biblestudy.net and make an enquiry about their beliefs regarding the cessation of the gifts, I am sure they will confirm that they believe in Conditional Cessationism. I have also made it quite clear that there is no literature on the question of the restoration of the gifts within the Cessationist framework. Cessationist literature is usually dominated by the scholars belonging to the Reformed Churches. This, however, does not mean that there are no groups of people who believe in the cessation of the gifts, but also believe that these gifts will be restored when certain eschatological conditions are met. My article just pointed out this fact and I think that this fact is informativelly valuable. My statement about this fact is verifiable because I have provided information on which people holds such and such beliefs about the cessation of the gifts and how to contact them.

Furthermore, even if there were no people subscribing to either Moderate Cessationism or Empirical Cessationism, these positions are conceptually possible within the Cessationist framework. I do not need any empirical observation in order to verify whether these forms of Cessationism "exist," since the evaluation of their compatibility with main Cessationist beliefs can be done by a pure logical analysis of the concepts involved. Thus, there is no need to refer to "some sources" in order to mention these ideas of Cessationism. Do you not think that these ideas of Cessationism should be mentioned in a serious exposition of Cessationism? I think that it should for the simple reason that in any academic pursue, one has to consider the whole logical space of the relevant concepts that are under the investigation. It also shows how the question of the cessation of the gifts is quite a complex one. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreadable article, cleanup, copy editing issues

It is not helpful to say that the article is unreadable without giving any further explanation. But it seems that the main objection to the article is that it is too long. Is it, therefore, unreadable? Would this be the reason that it got "cleanup" and "copy editing" tags? I find such objection very odd especially because I was careful in dividing the article in various sections and the structure of the article can be read by its Index (Content). Such tags are misleading if they were put just because the article is too long. A cleanup tag is appropriate if the article were poorly written, with no logical structure, bad language, grammar, agressive style, etc. Therefore, I ask those who put these tags to explain why these tags were put. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Size of the article

Cessationism article is about 80 KB. According to Wikipedia policy on splitting articles, an article between 60 KB and 100 KB should probably be divided, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time. I would rather shorten the article and not split it. However, Yaki-gaijin says that the article is poorly written and that it is unreadable. Do several of you think so? Is it just because it is too long or are there other concerns?

I am not sure why is the article "unreadable," since I was careful to divide the article in relevant sections. Readers can immediately spot the structure of the article. The article has introductory parts. For instance, the second part gives an introduction so that readers can get the first glimpse of the main issues that are in the dispute. Those more interested can read further and dwell in certain technicalities in the dispute. Is my article "unreadable" because it is too technical or detailed? Should certain details figuring in the dispute be removed? I am open for suggestion, but then I expect that we discuss which parts should be removed or changed. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I will have a deeper read of the article over th next few weeks. The article has improved siginificantly, especially in regards to balance and my view is that we should be very thoughtful before making any radical changes. It is difficult to understand, but so are some completed articles which assume some prior knowledge. At this stage I suggest we make grammatic improvements to the article to see if it becomes easier to read. --Another berean (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I will give this article to my friend who is a professional translator and he will see through the text in the next week. I hope that there are no serious grammar mistakes in the article. English is my third language and I suspect that people can see from my contribution that I am not a native speaker of English. In the next week, the article will be cleaned up with regard to grammar and similar. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am now working with the new changes to the article since I have realized that Yaki-gaijin has made his point valid with regard to the length of the article. I would rather shorten the article and not split it. If you have some suggestion which parts are not necessary, I would welcome your comments. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I think we should all give you the opportunity to shorten the article over the forthcoming weeks.--Another berean (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope that I will finish the modification of the article in about two days. I will try to make the structure of the article clearer. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Types of Cessationism

I have heard the view that much of the manifestations of the miraculous is fake in todays church but this does not mean that all is fake. The Holy Spirit is not limited and may produce rivival via the miraculous, but after a while, man takes control and rivival is no longer Spirit led, and the outpourings of the Holy Spirit cease, the presence of the Spirit departs and may or may not fall elsewhere. This view is often associated with the view that manifestations only take place on the frontier where the Gospel is being preached for the 1st time. Is this view a form of cessationism?--Another berean (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A good question. It is very similar to Conditional Cessationism. I think that it is a form of Cessationism provided that the condition of the manifestation (or cessation) of the gifts are associated with certain set of conditions. In this case it is a missionary activity on the frontier where the Gospel is being preached for the 1st time. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong in my previous formulation. I was a little bit hasty when answering your question. A Cessationist may believe that God can occassionally perform miracles, heal His children and even reveal Himself in dreams and visions. What a Cessationist would deny is the operation of charismata, the miraculous gifts, as described in 1 Cor XII-XIV. So, even a principled Cessationist, such as Warfield, can readily agree that God can occasionally perform miracles and healing for our comfort. Therefore, a Classic Cessationist would have no quarrel with the view that God can confirm a missionary's word to some tribe that was not exposed to the Gospel before. Thus, Classic Cessationism on the question of miracles is quite compatible with Principled Cessationism, i.e. Cessationism justified on the grounds of principle, such as the principle of Sola Scriptura. I am sorry for my previous and confusing formulation. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I will re read my book "Delusion or Dynamite? : reflections on a quarter-century of charismatic renewal" when I get back from holiday.--Another berean (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New updated structure of the article

I have made a major change in the structure of the article, prompted by Yaki-gaijin's complain that the article was poorly written and unread. I am taking Yaki-gaijin's complain seriously, and therefore, analyzed the structure (disposition) of the previous article. I realized that Yaki-gaijin's complain has certain validity. Previous section headings had the form "The (first, second, third, ...) Cessationist question: (...)." Such style of titles can give impression that each section was independent. Also, one could ask why was exactly these questions considered. However, with the new disposition of the article, every section is self-explanatory. The first part is unchanged. It is the second part that was changed. The second part starts with an introduction of the main issues of the dispute, then follows a brief account for each perspective, and at the end the discussion over various disagreements.

I hope that the article is clear and systematic. However, I could not avoid to write a long article. I could not remove certain sections; otherwise it would have lost a balanced and neutral account of the dispute. I had to quote both Continuationist and Cessationist various arguments, and give comments on these. Thus, the article is still a long one.

If you agree that the article is now clearer in its structure, is it necessary to split it just because it is too long? If we must split it, do you think that the splitted article would lose its neutrality? I wrote from a Cessationist theoretic framework, not from a Continuationist one. I think that the second part is, in overall, neutral, but the section "The question of the non-revelatory gifts" is focused upon the Cessationist perspective, and thus, was not quite neutral. Its main objective was to explain how would the operation of these gifts violate the principle of Sola Scriptura from the Cessationist theoretic framework. I concede that it has to be improved and make quite clear that the account is meant only to provide a Cessationist explanation, which is certainly question-begging for the Continuationists. However, if it is seen only in the context of giving an account of Cessationism, such concern about neutrality would not be so acute. A reader would understand that the focus is to provide a Cessationist understanding of non-revelatory gifts. For this reason, I am worried that the second part, if it is removed from its original page, and put in an isolated place, would lose its neutrality.

Are there no other qualified experts on charismata who could provide help here if we shall split the article? If we shall have a new wiki page dealing with the dispute Cessationism versus Continuationism, we need more contributors. The page should have the title "Cessationism versus Continuationism." We cannot simply remove the second part and move it to a new page without a discussion. We have to discuss first what should be changed and moved. We should also consider that the original page "Cessationism" will appear fragmented after the removal of the second part. We would only have a brief definition of Cessationism, types of Cessationism and brief historical testimony of Cessationism. The article would lack some words about the main rationale of Cessationism, since the whole rationale of Cessationism is explained in the second part. I fear that wiki page "Cessationism" would, thus, be a very poor presentation of Cessationism if the second part is removed from it without a serious discussion about the problems such change would cause. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic statements written in the second person plural

Before the major change of the article with regard to its structure, Yaki-gaijin have made some changes to the article that was accidentally removed when I updated the article.

I have a tendency to write in a lecturer style, and perhaps such style is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The sentences in question are these:

1. "We see from the foregoing that both disputants attach different meanings to key concepts in the understanding of charismata
2. "... as we have noted in addressing the strong Cessationist perspective, a person with the gift of power is also a prophet."

They were changed as follows:

1. Both disputants attach different meanings to key concepts in the understanding of charismata due to their underlying conceptual frameworks, which seem to be radically different in the dispute.
2. "... as noted in addressing the strong Cessationist perspective

The second sentence is better, but the first is problematic because it is necessary to point out previous observations. It is a concluding sentence. Could you please change the sentence without losing its concluding character? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Problematic statements that need citation?

Request for citation (7 May 2010)

Yaki-gaijin considers following passages as problematic: (1) the concluding paragraph of "The question of the non-revelatory gifts," and (2) the section "Challenges in the dispute over charismata." Yaki-gaijin requires that both passages have citations. For instance, with regard to the second passage, he asks: "Who is posing these questions???"

With regard to the first passage, the concluding paragraph of "The question of the non-revelatory gifts," is a conclusion of the section, and as such, it does not require a citation.

Similarly, the last section "Challenges in the dispute over charismata." is a conclusion of the second part and any person with an academic background would recognize this as such. Why would conclusions require citations? Statements figuring as premises in an argumentation require either verifications or appeal to authoritative sources, unless they are of apodictic character. This requirement, obviously, does not apply for conclusions. Nevertheless, Yaki-gaijin wants to know who asks questions like "can the dispute be resolved by finding a common ground in biblical data?" or "Would the interpretation of biblical data be possible without interpreting data through each of the disputant's different conceptual prism?" Well, any person having a postgraduate academic degree would recognize the general form of these questions that are typical in any scientific discipline. Any serious researcher asks the question of interpretation of data and one has to consider the problem of hermeneutic (theoretical) indeterminacy when two competing theories are in play. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New Problematic Passages (17 May 2010)

Yaki-gaijin considers that some new passages require citation. Here follows my comments to Yaki-gaijin's request. (the text in bold letters is the problematic text from the article)

A Cessationist would be skeptic towards such a Continuationist theory of inspiration. Such a theory of inspiration has to meet following problems:[citation needed]

It is unclear what is needed to be cited here. Is the Cessationist skepsis towards the Continuationist theory that needs a citation? Or is it rather that the Cessationist reply is in a need of citation? In the first case, why would we need a citation for the Cessationist skepsis, given the fact that the section The Argument of the Authority of Prophecies in The Cessationist Understanding makes it clear that Cessationism regard any prophecy inspired by God as infallible? In the second case, why would we need a citation for an "evident" argument? Is not an argument evident if the premises of the argument are accountable? Premises are accountable if they have been previously explained and given citation. In this case, the premises of the argument are accountable because they are a consequence of the Argument of the Authority of Prophecies, see further below for more explanation.

If we allow prophecies to contain error, i.e. they are not necessarily infallible, why would we call these spoken messages as prophecies? How could they be entitled to speak in the name of the Lord, if their words did not carry the weight of divine infallible authority, seen in the context of Deut 18:20-22? Deut 18 teaches us that a false prophet, who speaks presumptuously in the name of the Lord, is exposed by discovering falsehoods in his prophetic predictions. Seen in the light of the above Continuationist theory of inspiration, might not a perception and an interpretation of revealed predictions be wrong?[citation needed]

Why would we need a citation here? Does not the Continuationist theory make it plain that perception and interpretation can be wrong? If so, there is no need for a citation because it was provided; the Continuationist theory does have a citation (C. Samuel Storms, "A Third Wave View," in Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?, pp. 207-208).

If we allow prophecies to contain error, how do we distinguish these prophets who have spoken in error from false prophets who presumptuously speak in the name of the Lord? In the logic of prophetic self-declarations, we should treat a genuine prophecy as divine and infallible.[citation needed]

Why should we need a citation here, given the fact that the logic of prophetic self-declaration was already explained in the previous section The Argument of the Authority of Prophecies? Should we make a reference to the previous section? If you think that this is necessary, you are welcomed to do so.

A Cessationist, thus, concludes that a prophetic self-declaration does not carry any weight if we treated the spoken prophecy as human and fallible.[citation needed]

Could you please explain why should conclusions need citations? When it is said "A Cessationist, thus, concludes ...," it should be read in the context of an argument that contains accountable premises. Why would we need to quote any Cessationist who makes such an argument if the premises of the argument are either accountable or compatible with the Cessationist general principles, which were explained in the section The Cessationist Understanding?

It should be noted that this Cessationist reply is in a context of an account of the disagreement between Cessationists and Continuationists, Disagreements in the dispute. As such, it follows after the sections that respectivelly have given accounts of The Cessationist Understanding and The Continuationist Understanding. This means that the section Disagreements in the dispute is a buildup of the previous two sections, and as such, it does not need to repeat previous mentioned references. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with summary

"In Christian theology, Cessationism is the view that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history. The opposite of Cessationism is Continuationism.

Cessationists generally believe that the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God's purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle: John. (this is also known as the transition period for the canon of Scripture was not yet complete). Its counterpart is Continuationism which believes that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit have been available for use by the church ever since Pentecost."

1. In the 1st sentence we need to be more precise. All the gifts which cessationists believe ceased need to be specified instead of mentioning just 3. Is there more than 3?

I think that it is not necessary to be specific here. The mentioned gifts are examples of miraculous gifts. I think that it is better to be brief, not go so much in detail, but leave it to the main body of the article to deal with the question. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

2. "early on" in the 1st sentence is ambiguous. Was it around 150 AD as the Historical Evidence suggests. When was the last book of the NT written? When did the church ever form a consensus on what constitutes the canon of scripture?

It should be unspecific because there is a disagreement among Cessationists on this question. Principled Cessationists would maintain that the gifts ceased at the end of the 1st century (either because the canon was completed or because of the death of the last Apostle), while empirical Cessationists would say that the gifts ceased with the apostasy of the Church during the reign of Constantine. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

3. The 2nd paragraph and 1st sentence is only partly correct. Scripture informs us that tongues, for example, was given as a sign to the Jews, and this is not mentioned.

It is not necessary because the summary is meant to be very brief and introductory. The main body of the article deals with the question of tongues. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be more room for improvement for the summary.--Another berean (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your response and that the things I raised are best mentioned in the main body.--Another berean (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moderate Cessationism

I am not sure how a post tribulationist can also be a moderate cessationist as a post tribulationalist believes that the church goes through the Great Tribulation and there is only 1 Second Coming of Christ at the end of the Great Tribulation and no secret coming when His saints are raptured. A post tribulationist, modern cessationist would therefore believe in the re-emergence of the sign gifts during the Milennium--Another berean (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Moderate Cessationism is compatible with all premillennialist positions because it states that the gifts will reemerge during the Great Tribulation. It is not specific on the timing of the Tribulation in relation to the Rapture, e.g. whether the Rapture is before, in the middle, or after the Tribulation. Assuming that post-trib is true, the gifts will reemerge when the predicted events associated with the Tribulation start to occur, e.g. the appearance of the Antichrist, the rise of 144000 Jewish servants of God, the appearance of the two prophets, the great manifestations of the wrath of God, etc. In these days, the gifts will be in operation in the Church. Children of God will get new revelations through visions, dreams and God will guide the Church through prophets. Thus, the gifts will reemerge when the right eschatological conditions are met associated with the signs of the Great Tribulation. These conditions are not yet met, and therefore, a moderate Cessationist would deny that the gifts are in operation nowadays. For a moderate Cessationist of pre-trib persuasion, the gifts will reemerge after the Rapture, and thus, the Church will not experience this restoration of the gifts, while for a moderate Cessationist of post-trib persuasion, the Church will experience the restoration of the gifts. In any case, the gifts will reemerge in the future during the Great Tribulation. Do my reply answer your question? Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. The article needs clarification :-

"This openness to the possibility of a new charismatic period is motivated by premillennialist eschatological expectations, where it is assumed that Christ's Second Coming will occur before the establishment of Christ's millennial kingdom on Earth. Within this premillennialist conceptual framework, the Great Tribulation is seen as a future period immediately preceding Christ's Coming."

The above states the currently fashionable pre-trib premillenialist position, not the traditional premillenial position where Christ only returns once (no eaarlier secret return and rapture of church).--Another berean (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I misunderstood the word preceding. I agree that the Great Tribulation being immediately followed by Christ's public Second Coming fits both the pre trib and post trib position.--Another berean (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

So, the article does not need a clarification? I think that the article should not go into eschatological details, but only give a neutral account on Moderate Cessationism where all premillenialist would agree. I believe that my account of moderate Cessationism is neutral. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem areas

After reading up to "Continuationism versus Cessationism: main issues", I have to say that the article is too long and the language used is too complicated for the average reader. There is a lot of information contained in this one article.

The language needs to be tighter, as in less wordy. I notice there is some jargon, such as in "Moderate Cessationism": "A moderate Cessationist would agree with all three propositions pr. 1-3, but with an important qualification: all three propositions are valid only in the post-Apostolic Age of the Church before the Great Tribulation, i.e. in the period after the first century until the days of the Great Tribulation." Please do not use uncommon abbreviations such as pr.

As for everything in the article after "Continuationism versus Cessationism: main issues", I can't give an opinion because by the time I read through the first part of the article I was mentally drained. It was a struggle reading through this article and I'm not exaggerating. This article needs to be simplified for the average Wikipedia reader.

I agree with earlier comments, now archived, that this article be split. I would prefer that that a new article be formed out of "Continuationism versus Cessationism: main issues". Then this article and Continuationism can concentrate on simply stating the two arguments. Both arguments could then be critiqued at the new article. WP would then have 3 articles: one on cessationism, one on continuationism, and then one on the arguments for and against each position. Ltwin (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the readability of the article, the article is technical because it gives a detailed exposition of the main arguments for Cessationism and various objections towards it. It provides a very detailed analysis of the arguments pro contra. Thus, it is unavoidable that the article becomes too technical. It is written not for an average wikipedia reader, but for a reader genuinely interested in the topic who has some familiarity with Christian theology.

With regard to the splitting the article into three suggested articles, we have following problems. First, there is already a WP article Continuationism. Second, the exposition of main issues of the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists provides a good understanding of both positions because it introduces the rationale for Cessationism: understanding the reasons for the position. One cannot understand some belief or philosophical view without understanding its rationale. Furthermore, Cessationism cannot be understood without understanding its counterpart Continuationism, because both positions emerged from a polemics concerning the Charismatic gifts. Thus, the part dealing with the main issues is very important for understanding Cessationism, and without that part, the article would be quite crippled. For this reason, I am quite worried for the prospect of fragmentation of the article. If it must be splitted, it should be splitted carefully by a person with extensive knowledge of the subject matter. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the existence of the Continuationism article. I'm not advocating splitting this article into 3 separate articles only 2 - one on Cessationism and one using the "Continuationism versus Cessationism: main issues" section as its base. Then with the already existing article on Continuationism, we would have 3 articles 2 dealing with each viewpoint and 1 dealing with the critique of both.

I've stricken through the above as I was not aware that Cessation-continuation debate existed. Perhaps it would help if this had been mentioned in the article? Well now that the article I was advocating already exists, the "Continuationism versus Cessationism: main issues" section should be drastically reduced. WP:Summary would be a good policy to look at.

The article Cessationism was splitted before with the resulting article Cessation-continuation debate. However, the fragmented article is bad, as it was discussed before. It should be deleted. Moreover, the title "Cessation-continuation debate" does not make any sense. It is a dispute between two positions Cessationism and Continuationism, and not about cessation and continuation. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• "It is written not for an average wikipedia reader, but for a reader genuinely interested in the topic who has some familiarity with Christian theology."

No it is not, at least it shouldn't be. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that anyone can read. I should not have to take a college course in philosophy to understand this article. I don't understand what you mean by "for a reader genuinely interested in the topic who has some familiarity with Christian theology". That's not the problem. The article has too many words. There is alot of unnecessary fluff that could be eliminated from this article. This reads like it was written by a professor who loves to hear himself talk. Ltwin (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the article being too complicated, the same criticism could be made about many articles, if read by the average reader. For example, I find articles on anything about nuclear physics very difficult to read, as the articles assume some prior knowledge by the reader. However, I have an interest in theology, and find this article very informative. I find the overall structure is fine, and is written in a moderate language and should not offend Christians holding Continuationist beliefs.

There is, however, room for grammatical improvements, in order to improve its clarity.

Grammatically, I think this sentence is the worst :- "Thus while some Cessationists allow for the presence of miracles, healing and God's guidance, the understanding of this allowance these phenomena differ from Continuationist understanding in that a Cessationist contends that God neither speaks through some special chosen prophets nor heals through some special chosen healers" Another berean (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What "unnecessary fluff" should be deleted? The article gives a presentation of both Cessationist and Continuationist arguments. One cannot avoid many words when presenting both sides. Cessationism cannot be properly understood without understanding Continuationist view. Therefore, it was necessary to deal with the arguments pro contra Cessationism. You are welcome to improve the article by eliminating "unnecessary fluff," but one should do it carefully for otherwise one is in danger of distorting each view in the dispute. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is splitted

Because of the length of the article, the article is splitted. The part dealing with the main issues in the dispute is moved to the WP article Cessationism versus Continuationism. The former article "Cessation-continuation debate" is moved to the new formed WP page Cessationism versus Continuationism. Theophilius (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)