Talk:Cessationism

Major restructure of the article

Restructuring to the original structure

For some reason, someone removed the original structure and divided the first heading "Types" with this division:

• Total cessationists
• Moderate cessationists
• Theoretical basis

In the original article, the first heading had the title "Types of Cessationism." Changing the title to a mere "Types" is not a proper title (one might ask "types of what?"). In the original article, the different versions of Cessationism were explained, i.e., explaining on what criteria Cessationists can disagree. However, this was removed without giving good reasons. Fortunately, I have kept saved the original article, which helped me to restore some of the material that was removed, while at the same time not removing additions that were put by other editors.

Now, in the previous version (right before the current one), the previous structure (with the above division) is not a good one.

First, the classification of cessationists on the question of whether miracles/healings are allowed is completely missing. This is a serious omission. There are cessationists, such as Classical Cessationists, that believe that God can occasionally perform miracles/healings as a result of a prayer, but deny that God operates through special prophets and healers, i.e., deny the operation of charismatic gifts. This kind of cessationists should be, therefore, mentioned. (The part dealing with Classical Cessationists/Full Cessationists was not my contribution, but I think that it is a very good one. I am surprised that this part was removed in previous editions.)

Second, the division of the types of cessationism into (1) "total cessationists," (2) "moderate cessationist" and (3) "theoretical basis" is very confusing. It is not consistent. (Why suddenly "theoretical basis" after mentioning two versions of cessationism? One would expect a third kind of cessationists in the list of types of cessationism in accordance to the first two items of the list of headings.) Moreover, it was not explained that "total cessationism" is related to "moderated cessationism" in the question of reemergence of the gifts. This was not very well explained.

Third, the titles of the headings are not correct, as explained in the next section ("Change of headings")

In this structure of the article, I have given an account of the major differences among Cessationists. If you do not agree with this present structure, please do not edit it before discussing it on this Talk Page. Theophilius (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing "Types of Cessationism" to "Types" is completely correct as we're reading an article on Cessationism. It is also supported by MOS:HEADINGS, that makes it clear, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer."

I agree Theophilius (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems to returning to the headings and formatting you suggest, provided that the content and naming is supported by reliable sources.

It would also be useful for you to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout.

One final thing, Cessationists are people, so grammatically speaking it would be better if you used "Cessationists who" rather than "Cessationists that". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. It is edited. Theophilius (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Change of headings

I have changed the titles of headings: "Strong Cessationism" (instead of "Total cessationism") and "Cessationism with regard to its justification" (instead of "Theoretical basis").

With regard to the first title, many philosophical or scientific theories are differentiated with respect to their scope in terms of strength, e.g., "strong", "moderate" (cf. the epistemological theory of Foundationalism, where we differentiate between strong and moderate versions of Foundationlism). Therefore, in this context, it is more appropriate to use "strong cessationism" rather than "total cessationism."

With regards to the second title, in the original Wikipedia article, there was a heading with the title "Types of Cessationism by types of justification," which was later changed into "Theoretical basis." The given editorial reason was that "this has nothing to do with justification." There was no further explanation given that would clarify why arguing for Cessationism on the grounds of principle or on empirical evidence is not regarded as a form of justification. I am at loss here, since the term "justification" is usually understood as an action of showing something to be right or reasonable. (Consulting any dictionary would show this. This sense of the term is usually used in philosophy and science.) I believe that the new title is better for obvious reason that arguing from an accepted principle or empirical evidence is per definition a justification. Theophilius (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem the editor was presumably objecting to is that "justification" has a very distinct theological meaning, and no one (I suspect) believes that cessationism is relevant to that theological meaning of justification. Your title is not wrong, but I agree with the other editor. When I read "justification" in this article, because it is about a doctrine I immediately thought "justification by faith". -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposals

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging both Completed revelation and Neo-revelationism into this article. Completed revelation seems to be a Catholic and Orthodox synonym for cessationism. Neo-revelationism seems to be an obscure antonym for cessationism. Both articles are of poor quality with minimal sources. Combining these will ensure we get the most points of view to achieve comprehensive coverage of this topic. Daask (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Completed revelation is not exactly the same as cessationism. Catholics and Orthodox continue to believe in spiritual gifts, as can be seen in stories about the lives of saints. It just means that God is not adding any new revelations. Material from Neo-revelationism could probably be placed in a number of different articles, not sure cessationism is the best place. Perhaps redirect to revelation. Ltwin (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2018 (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.

History/Development

I have changed the lead and intend to add in a history section straight after to describe the development of this doctrine. What does someone who knows nothing of this doctrine need to know? I would think a discussion of how it developed would be essential information. --Sirfurboy (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Audience

I think we need to take a step back from this article and think about audience. I have changed the lead a little but really the whole article requires too much background of the reader. Audience for Wikipedia articles is anyone, regardless of background, or indeed of age. There should be no assumption that the reader is a protestant Christian with an understanding of theology. Most readers read only the lead of an article, so the lead needs to be better, and to sumamrise the article itself.

Then the article should provide more background. A reader needs to know:

• 1. What cessationism is
• 2. Its history. Where did it come from?
• 3. Who holds these views and why (maybe that is covered in history)
• 4. Coverage of the view and links for further reading.

The sections 1,2 and 3 are not really covered. The meat of the article jumps straight into "types" without any background, so I propose to add some sections. This will allow readers to glean an understanding of cessationism without having to delve into the specific arguments.

I think we have 4 covered nicely - although it is classification heavy and seems to rely on a theological background to the reader. Readers reading this deep into the article maybe have some of that, but it would be worth review. I agree with the now deleted talk discussion from 2010: "Problem Areas" in which @Ltwin: raised some of these issues, and notice that the article remains substantially the same in structure as it was in 2010. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Types

The whole Types section and its sub sections are heavily dependent on the article "The End of Charismatic Gifts" and written by Aleksandar Katanovic. Some sentences border on copy-vio, but in general there has been an attempt to rewrite and acknowledge the source. However there is a WP:DUE issue here. We have a Wikipedia article that is using structure and terminology from a single source and that terminology is not widely shared. "Moderate cessationism" is defined here differently from other uses of the term. I am going to pare this material right back. It is a good source, but it is only one source. The "empirical cessationism" is worth a mention but we should not be simply repeating Katanovic's argument uncritically and in full. I will make it clear it is his terminology. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a book on the subject by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. et al., Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: 4 Views, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Wayne A. Grudem, Zondervan Counterpoints Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) which presents four views, namely, cessationist, "open but cautious", Third Wave and Pentecostal/charismatic. I haven't had a chance to read it as yet but will try to contribute to the article once I have. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, I'm glad someone is finally tackling this set of articles. I will also try to look through some of the books I've collected over the years to see if anything can be added to the article. I'll also take a look through JSTOR. Ltwin (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both and thanks Ltwin for fixing my haphazard capitalization! The "open but cautious" you mention, Darlig, is a view I intend to put into the continuationism article, if it is what I think it is. For instance, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a continuationist in that he rejected cessationism, but he was never a Pentecostal/Charismatic. His view would have been that gifts are possible but not common. I think Christopher Catherwood's book about him contains a good citation for that. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctrine or not?

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) has changed “doctrine” to “theological position” in the short description with edit summary stating it is not a doctrine. I have no problem with the edit, but am not convinced about an argument it is not a doctrine. Wayne Grudem calls it a doctrine in “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: 4 Views.” See, for instance, page 264. There are very many others who do so too - too many to list but Google would give an indication - but the Grudem quote shows a respected theologian is happy to do so. If it were not a doctrine, we might need to say why it is not. Yet I do not see how it does not fit with any definition of Christian doctrine. Could you elaborate on that?

To be clear, I don’t see any reason to revert the edit. I just wish to establish if there is more to be said here. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: you are confused. Editor2020 (talk · contribs) Added the summary shortly before I modified it. Summaries usually simplify the lede sentence. The lede sentence labels it as a "theological position". Ask Editor2020 why the change. And to be clear, you changed it from "belief" to "theological position". Why did you not use "doctrine" at that time? With that said, I don't like the use of the term doctrine as the connotation it has gives it too much credibility. I'd sooner see "belief" used, and used consistently, and not use an WP:UNDUE term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Well I wasn’t confused, but I am a bit now. :) You changed the word doctrine to theological position here.[1]. The lead has both theological position and doctrine in it although theological position comes first. I don’t think it is an either/or. However, I am content with the change - I just wished to understand it better. Thanks. — Sirfurboy (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. This is the lede sentence: "In Christianity, cessationism is a Protestant theological position that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age." "Doctrine" is not present.

Summaries are usually created from the lede sentence. In this case, it was an amalgam of the first sentence and the next.

"Doctrine" is a loaded word, and far from WP:NPOV. For instance when we say "the incarnation is a basic doctrine of classical Christianity", people understand that all Christians believe it. While it means a teaching or understanding, not all readers will hear that, particularly since the word is overused by those in reformed or Calvinist camp. In this case, it's a belief held by a minority and the connotation inherent gives it too much weight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. “Doctrine” is not the loaded word there. “Basic” is. That is the word that might imply all Christians believe it. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I am reverting the edit as I have over 39 volumes in my library that refer to cessationism as a "doctrine." Even John MacArthur, one of its chief current proponents, calls it a doctrine. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

MacArthur and Sproul are two of the people who call anything that agrees with reformed theology a "doctrine" and anything that disagrees with it, they disparage first by incorrectly identifying it as being identified with what was determined to be a heresy at an earlier Church council (for instance, calling something semi-Palagian) or more simply by not calling it a doctrine. In this case, MacArthur calling it a doctrine falls directly into this camp.

Nonetheless, as long as the summary matches the lede sentence, I have no problems with it. "Fix" the lede sentence as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)