![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Archived discussions from 22 January 2003 through 2008. Note: discussions may be refactored.
Picky point about the Toronto Blessing and the Vineyard Movement. The Toronto church that "housed" the Blessing WAS a Vineyard church into the mid-90s, when the leaders of Toronto and the leaders of the Vineyard could not agree on a variety of issues, including authority issues, prophet vs. pastor issues, things like this. The Toronto church is not a Vinetard anymore, and the Vineyard stakes out a place that blends features of pentecostalism and features of evangelicalism. I am going to double-check this, then update the entry to reflect this. Professor 01:00, 22 January 2003
So, I'm trying to reconcile these two sentences:
Most major Pentacostal churches also accept the corollary that those who don't speak in tongues have not received the blessing of the Holy Spirit. [...] The idea that one is not saved unless one speaks in tongues is rejected by most major Pentecostal denominations.
[See December 1, 2003 revision]
I think that either:
Anyway around it, it's kind of a confusing little couplet. -- ESP 03:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pat Robertson was removed by anonymous user 68.159.71.33 with the emphatic claim that he's not Pentecostal. I suppose some Pentecostals would not want to claim him, but that is not sufficient reason to remove him. I checked several sources that all said he was originally Southern Baptist, but is now of the Pentecostal pursuasion. So unless 68.159.71.33 (or someone else) can come up with more justifictation for the change, I will return his name to this page after a couple days. Pollinator 01:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Noted: no response. Pollinator 13:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Some points. Pentecostalism is half a century older than Charismatics. Charismatism is a middle-class version of Pentecostalism, rejecting the obligation of speaking in tongues and the legalism. Most Charismatics and quite some Pentecostals have turned neo-Evangelicals, and are specifically called neo-Pentecostals. Neo-Evangelicals are considered heretical to various degrees by orthodox, conservative Evangelicals, specially by Reformed Evangelicals. I will modify the article accordingly if no one else does... [Unsigned comment by Leandrod 18:09, 5 May 2004]
I have removed Romania from the statistics section. An anonymous editor claimed that my statistics were inaccurate, and provided this source, and when I checked my original source, I found that I had mis-copied the percentage of the population (1.3) as the total Pentecostal population in millions. The error was mine, and I apologise. David Cannon 20:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To the anonymous user who keeps on reverting the statistics to those from the 1994 edition of Operation World: that edition is 10 years out of date. The latest edition is the one published in 2000, on which these statistics are based. If you disagree with the statistics in this book, please provide an alternative - up to date - source for your claims. If you can provide a more recent source, we can discuss that, but please DO NOT use an older source. Thank you. David Cannon 19:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would (again) request our anonymous editor to stop using false sources. You say you got your latest figure of 50m from Johnson's 2001 Operation World - but page 3 of that source says 115m. The figure for Africa alone comes to more than 41m (page 21) and North America 21m (page 32) - these two continents alone have more than the 50m you claim. Factor in Latin America - 32m (page 34), Asia - 15m (page 41), Europe - 4m (page 52) and the Pacific - 3m (page 58), and your claims don't add up, according to the source you're claiming. I believe you are confused. You may dispute these statistics if you want to (they're not infallable) but please back up your claims with sources (post-2001) that can be checked. I WILL check any source you give me, as I have this one, and if you manufacture statistics out of thin air and MIS-attribute them to a particular source, I will keep on reverting you until you get tired. I'm serving notice that I myself will not get tired, so if you want to vandalize Wikipedia you're in for a marathon, not a sprint. David Cannon 12:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:68.89.219.152 removed a section that spoke about some Pentecostals not speaking in tongues for various reasons. I have reverted this because I think it is likely that some who call themselves Pentecostals do not speak in tongues for these reasons. Removing it is essentially stating that these people are not Pentecostals - which may be true for some people but not for everyone else. -- One Salient Oversight 01:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nothing about the handling of snakes? That's the funniest part. [Unsigned comment by User:192.175.173.94 19:30, 1 April 2005]
IMO, Pentecostalism, while largely decendend from Protestantism is not a part of it. The theology is different, and most importantly, the internal workings of congregrations is very different. There is certainly more different between Pentecostalism and Protestantism than between Restorationism and Protestantism (which are treated as being quite seperate). matturn 13:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure Pentecostalism differs from Fundamentalism as its stated here and as its defined by Wikipedia itself. I think this should be rephrased. -LuckyDay [Comment by User:63.13.225.20 07:21, 21 April 2005]
Hello. I am not a regular user of this page so I don't have an account. I myself am a Pentecostal believer. I was just wondering if it were perhaps possible to re-phrase the statement regarding women's ministry. It says in the article that it is contrary to the teachings of both Peter and Paul. I don't want to start an argument or anything, but wouldn't be a bit more appropriate for an encyplopedia to take a more neutral stand? It is debatable whether this is really the teaching of the Scriptures, Pentecostals most certainly believe it to be in harmony with the scriptures to allow women to minister. The article could state that Pentecostals allow women to minister, which seperates them from some other protestants with a high view of scripture, or something like that. God bless. Helgi. [Comment by User:81.82.220.98 18:26, 3 May 2005]
There is no discussion of the early church fathers with supporting quotations. I strongly believe there should be. Please see: www.victorious.org/sprgifts. ken 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I know nothing of this subject, so ill just dropp it here:
-- Striver 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always accompanied initially by the outward evidence of speaking in tongues. This is a major difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians who believe that a Christian who is baptized in the Holy Spirit may exhibit other physical signs instead of speaking in tongues. The idea that one is not saved unless one speaks in tongues is rejected by most major Pentecostal denominations."
I'm a little confused. If the last sentence is true, then it seems like the rest of the paragraph must not be. [Unsigned comment by User:12.4.255.195 19:37, 12 December 2005]
In the UK it is very rare for Pentecostal churches to exercise women's ministry, whereas one can often find non-pentecostal evangelical churches with women ministers. It follows that women's ministry - either for or against - is not characteristic of either pentecostal or non-pentecostal churches in the UK. -pftaylor 01 04 2006 [Comment by User:83.105.70.250 11:10, 4 January 2006]
I'm not sure what the following sentence is supposed to say as it doesn't seem to be in context in the place it is currently in - " The True Jesus Church, an indigenous church founded by Chinese believers on the mainland but whose headquarters is now in Taiwan. " [Unsigned comment by User:Johnmarkh 22:04, 18 December 2005]
From what I've read about fundamentalism, it appears that there's plenty of room for it to include Pentecostalism, even the distinctives of Pentecostalism. I say this because the doctrine of "cessationism" (which claims that tongues, prophecy, and miracles have passed out of usage) is not a prerequisite for fundamentalism. Pentecostals are obviously not cessationist in their doctrine. Also, there's no particular worship style requirement of fundamentalism as well. Just because the majority of self-identifying fundamentalists are cessationist, have rigid worship practices, and believe in the eternal security of the believer, doesn't mean that those who differ are, by definition, not fundamentalist. Historically, many fundamentalist leaders have been very biased against Pentecostals, but in reality this was due more to personal revulsion than genuine claims of the incompatibility of Pentecostal distinctives with "fundamentalist doctrine". In other words, being cessationist doesn't make you a "true" fundamentalist" any more than speaking in tongues. Pentecostals meet every definition of fundamentalism that I can recall. [Unsigned comment by User:Jlujan69 23:02, 18 January 2006]
There is little material here on criticism of pentecostalism. We used to have a subarticle which has recently been deleted. However, in that article, and in previous versions of the history, is a lot of material that could profitably be merged here in some form. See Talk:Charismatic movement/Criticism salvage and this version. — Matt Crypto 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard Penti's allow homos to be in the church and that this practice is encouraged. Please explain. As well, what is up with these Penti's believing in beating their kids, spare not the rod is what they say. [Unsigned commment by
User:131.137.245.200 19:34, 9 May 2006]
[The striked comment above by
User:131.137.245.200 was deleted by
User:Dcmcgov and replaced with the following comment.]
Deleted the unsigned and very ignorant text from this location. Dcmcgov 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography (Issue 90) has an article on Pentacostalism on pages 46-47, plus a snippet on page 8. No time to do this article tonight, but I'm letting you all know in case you want to borrow a copy from a library/friend and include relevant facts. GRBerry 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph as it does not reflect the views of most Pentecostal denominations. It may be views held by some (such as Oneness which is discussed later in the article).
Any comments? Johnmarkh 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I suffered child abuse at the hands of a pastor, I'm positive that thousands of others have also. Why is it not mentioned anywhere here? (Sorry for signing with an IP, but I really don't feel comfortable going public about this.) 211.30.71.59 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I've since retitled this section, there's no controversial section what so ever and .. well, pentecostals aren't seen as a very sane Christian sect where I come from? I was beaten for playing with He-Man because it 'was the devil'. I was encouraged to cry for forgiveness at the altar and told that only the parsons wife can speak in tongues because we all had the devil in us but she was the only pure one? I'm sure these are contraversial issues which would form a common theme in a lot of churches in general, but definitely should be addressed where brought. 211.30.71.59 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published a mammoth 10-nation study on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement. It can be found in their page on Pentecostalism, which has some other stories and studies which can be of some use to this article. The executive summary may be viewed on the website at the second link provided above, and the entire document may be downloaded and viewed as a pdf free of charge from a link on that same page. I think using data from that site can significantly increase some information on this page, particularly pertaining to Pentecostalism outside of the US. Hairouna 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the second post here, there is a sentence that appears to be incomplete in the Pentecostal Denominations section. There is also a sentence after it that does not appear to be referenced, and seems a little out of place. I have added internal notes to this effect. BenC7 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Most classical Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always accompanied initially by the outward evidence of speaking in tongues. It is considered a liberalizing tendency to teach contrary to this historic position.
I was, as a matter of fact, researching Pentecostalism as a preliminary to attending a service when I read the above excerpt. At first, I was put off at the prospect of the necessity of speaking in tongues before one gains community "acceptance", as it were (maybe it only pertains to the inner community). However, the contention evidenced by the phrasing of the second sentence struck me as an illuminating example of the wiki-process (or some other similarly titled concept). I could assume this may have been a recent near-edit-war, and some editors can specifically recall how the sentence came to be, but it may also have developed slowly and peacefully. I don't know, and that unknown makes it sound like a good story.
In my last analysis, I can see Pentacostalism rifting into the classical liberal and conservative camps. Others have analyzed how other such conflicts have shaped up over time, and those would probably also make good stories (provided there's a good story-teller!). Xaxafrad 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
...And then I read the rest of the article (wow, the whole speaking in tongues issue really is a hot topic). Xaxafrad 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I just wanted to explain my somewhat large edit. There are differing doctrines among Pentecostal denominations and I added some Pentecostal doctrines that were not previously represented on this page. I also changed "Pentecostals believe. . ." to "Many Pentecostals believe. . ." in those various instances where I added doctrines. I fixed some grammar, added some Scripture references, and rearranged some of the article to improve readability and flow. Spiritanointed 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) spiritanointed
Why was the link to the PLDS removed from the See Also section. It certainly fits. [Unsigned comment by User:66.191.17.168 00:27, 26 March 2007]
"Charismatic Christians, at least in the early days of the movement, tended to remain in their respective denominations." This last sentence in the introduction does not seem relevant enough to be in the introductory section. Is also badly worded. - Fendersmasher 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An example:
Some Pentecostals have modified the view teaching that Spirit baptism is not considered a second chronological work of grace, but a second aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry.
I'm not an informed reader in the sense that I am not a Christian and am not familiar with the nuances of Christian theological debates and the apertaining vocabulary. But I am more informed than the average reader, insofar as I do know a little about the history of Evangelical Christianity and the various doctrines of Protestantism. I can make some sense of this article, but parts of it are difficult to follow. And using a phrase like "a second chronological work of grace" in an encylcopedia intended for general reading, without further elaboration, strikes me as inexcusable. Soft helion 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have attended a pentecostal many times they have religous convictions.a lot of them.Women no pants,makeup,haircuts,and many other things.Men no shorts,facial hair,also many other things.its hard.Please dont be offened by this.i have pentecostal friends and family.i also attended the church for most of my childhood.THX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!just wanted to say that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.159.74.66 ( talk) 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I wish to nominate this article because I believe it is a class FA article, and is a very interesting and well established look at Pentecostalism. It failed to achieve this in 2004, but 3 years on I believe it should be a Featured Article. tmjsmith 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Statistics by their very nature can be referenced and substantiated. The entries that are appearing at the end of the list under the heading of "While not as large as some of the above organizations the following have made quite an impact on Pentecostalism:" is a very subjective statement. Who are these organisations? What is the 'impact' they have made? Where are the references to demonstrate that they are important organisation in the Pentecostal movement either in terms of numbers or influence? Looking at the current entries I believe that it is just becoming a list where any church or denomination can be listed for self-publicity. I would suggest that this list be either removed or properly referenced. Any comments Nshimbi 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a type of article that is so long and detailed that is does not serve very well for readers who only intend to pick up a short overview. If there was a way to check reading time stats I think you'd find that most people would read up to a page at most, preferring to stop after 2 or 3 paragraphs. Therefore it's important to have a highly readable overview of just the key (and/or most interesting) information at the top. It would be good to have 2 or 3 short paragraphs which summarize the flood of detailed information that follows in the rest of the article. Right now it's very hard to get any memorable information from this article. One either has to devote considerable time to studying it in detail, or leave nearly empty handed. 75.63.62.178 18:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Echoing another's desire for readability, especially amongst those who are not acquainted with Christian theology can I ask what people think regarding the use of 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit'.
I think it would help readability and comprehension if we stuck to one or the other. I was going to simply change all useage to one but though I'd better talk about it first as I am aware that this could be controversial , especially with those who prefer certain editions of the Holy Bible.
I propose changing all entries to 'Holy Spirit' solely on the basis of consistency within this document and within WP (for example the page for Holy Ghost is a re-direct to Holy Spirit) —Preceding unsigned rgds, ||:) johnmark† 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I hate it when I forget to sign my entries!
Whilst I think it is right to note that the orthodoxy of Pentecostalism is questioned by some in other denominations I think the referencing on these paragraphs is somewhat suspect. In the section that states “there is a loud expression of opposition from those commonly known to be part of "Mainstream Christianity" (Oriental Orthodoxy, Byzantine Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and mainline Protestants)” I have two issues. Firstly, the reference link is to a site that is of ex-Pentecostals, but there is nothing to demonstrate that these people speak in any official capacity for the branches of Christianity that are cited. Secondly, It is questionable whether the groups lumped together under the title of ‘Mainstream Christianity’ would necessarily agree that the other groups have a legitimacy either.
Similarly, the second reference in this paragraph also purports to be on behalf of ‘Mainstream Christianity’, but of examination seems to be the view of a small group who seem to have no capacity to speak on behalf of the larger body.
I would suggest that this section needs to be substantially rewritten. Yes, the criticism should be noted, but it is wrong to make it appear these two referenced sites are anything more than criticism from smaller groups. Also, I would suggest that the paragraph on criticism should not be the third section, but, following the placing of similar paragraphs in other Wikipedia articles, much further down in the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshimbi ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem as we've stated has to do with taking the contributor's word for XX church group having such and such millions without any references. Ok that's where we are at now. As Nshimbi said the responisibility falls to the editors to include references for the statistics should they attempt to approximate a certain figure. Otherwise the section could be a total figure (hopefully we can find one from an accurate source - so far it is 150 million with no references) with the major churches as contributors to that figure and NOT state individual church numbers. However the arguement over WHO gets their church in the list will no doubt come again. Any other ideas are welcome. Darrenss 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the last entry on the article in the criticism section for several reasons. I couldn't tell WHAT the specific argument was, there were no references to place an object of criticism. By all means contribute but please go somewhere with your edits. Practical criticism is fine I'm not trying to deny critical views but it at least it needs some good reason to be in the article - WP:ATT. Let me know if you think I'm wrong, maybe some of those comments should be included but presented in a WP:NPOV. Darrenss 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked the reference given for the AOG church which is supposed to support a figure of 54 million. Unless my eyes are wrong the total only includes U.S totals which are around 2.5 million found at the bottom graph on the link. Darrenss 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I revised this edit because of the following statement:
[To this first group, speaking in tongues is the sign of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and is necessary for salvation. They also believe you must repent, and be born again through water baptism by immersion in Jesus name in order to recieve salvation. This belief comes directly from the New Testament account given in Acts 2;38]
"born again through water baptism by immersion" - This statement seems odd to me? I don't think you can write this as any kind of majority teaching for this article, for as much as I know, the majority is, as the initial salvation experience anyway, "saved by faith without works", usually done in some kind of sinners prayer. Anyone else got a take on this? Darrenss 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears in recent weeks that members of this organisation have decided that the Wikipedia's article on Pentecostalism is a method of promoting and marketing their denomination. May I remind them that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and states it is neither and advertising tool or directory. Each time the International Circle of Faith have posted up something it has been removed by one editor or another as it is either self promotion or the claim is can not be easily verified, please could members of this organisation refrain from using this aricle to promote themselves unless their inclusion meets the requirements for an encylopedia. Thank you Nshimbi 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's take this as a for instance:
"Pentecostals believe it is essential to repent of their sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus, believe in Jesus Christ as Savior in order to obtain salvation and in the infilling of the Holy Ghost."
Pentecostals do not believe that. Some Pentecostals, particularly Oneness and Jesus Only Pentecostals, do believe that, but it is a serious misrepresentation of Pentecostalism to make a blanket claim that "Pentecostals believe..." when not all, or even perhaps the majority, of Pentecostals share the belief. For instance, the Assemblies of God teach that neither water baptism (Jesus' name or Trinitarian) or speaking in tongues is required for salvation.
Editors, please take care and be sensitive. Trinitarians are people too, and heck, some of them are even Pentecostals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 ( talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we are using the archaic term Holy Ghost rather than the modern Holy Spirit in this article? If there is, then we should at least be consistent. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many major evangelical groups (e.g., the National Association of Evangelicals) would not consider all Pentecostals to be within the realm of evangelicalism. This is not based on the phenomenon of gifts of the Spirit, but rather on the view of God that some Pentecostals hold. Most evangelical groups profess the Trinity and hold belief in this view of God as a criterion for membership. Oneness Pentecostals would obviously be excluded from this designation in some cases. Therefore, I've removed the word "Evangelical" from the first sentence of this article, since the entirety of Pentecostalism cannot be considered orthodox or evangelical, even if various denominations within it can be. It's kind of deceptive to say that "Pentecostalism is a movement within evangelical Christianity," when the matter seems to be in dispute. [Unsigned comment by User:64.132.242.232 20:39, 19 February 2008]
From the article: "Pentecostalism was estimated to number around 115 million followers worldwide". How can this be true when majority of sources place these figures much higher? In the Report of catholic Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity the number of Pentecostals is estimated to be about 165 million in Asia alone [4] , while aqccording to National Catholic Reporter Pentecostals "skyrocketed throughout the late 20th century to at least 380 million, by the most conservative estimate, and perhaps as many as 600 million." [5] Now I wouldn't regard the Catholic Church as a sympathizer of Pentecostal movement, so these figures can be reliable, and in my opinion numbers much higher than 115 milions should be included into the article. Pentecostalism as as a movement is very fragmented, and it is impossible to estimate its membership only by counting figures from major denominations, because there are thousands of smaller and bigger pentecostal denominations and communities throughout the world, and additionally many of them are unregistered. Ammon86 ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Originally, this may have been a high quality article. Now, it is hard to follow, repetitive, and not properly cited. Over the next few weeks, I am going to attempt to improve things significantly. Is anyone with me? Lori belle ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This site was used as a reference that Pentecostalism was the fastest growing segment of Christianity. Leaving aside the fact that such claims are usually very doubtful (virtually every minority sport claims to be the fastest growing), does anyone know anything about the reliability of the site? Who is running it? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the following notice at the top of this page:
Why does anyone think this should be at the top of the page outside of the rest of the article? This belongs in the introduction, if any where. This statement isn't even necessarily accurate. This definition is a classical pentecostal definition of faith, but other pentecostals may not view tongues as the initial evidence. In other words, some pentecostals do beleive that you can show other signs of being filled not just speaking in tongues. Any way these issues are addressed in the article so why is this statement needed? Ltwin ( talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction, someone wrote that one of the main categories is Finished Work pentecostals. There is no source to cite (though there aren't sources for the other ones either) but I have never heard of this category. I have heard of trinitarians and oneness, but being a pentecostal my whole life I have never heard of these kind pentecostals. Can anyone out there cite sources for the introduction so we can know whats true and whats not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone with only IP address wrote into the article: 'Hillsong forever' and so on... - user:tothaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.123.28 ( talk) 08:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs refining. Also, what happened to the tradition of putting citations inside quote marks?. Several times, the narrator looses neutrality, making the article read like propaganda, for example:
Outpourings of the holy ghost is a statement for a church document, not a neutral, informative entry in an encyclopaedia. The sentence assumes that there is a holy ghost, indicative and religiously re-affirming statements should not be part of the article, this is a statement of faith,not a unbiased presentation of belief. If the pentecostal movement considered it so, then a citation is required and the statement should be a quote.
Suggest change to:
and this would then require a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabulos ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The Beliefs and Theology sections should be combined and a new initiative to improve this article should be started. Please help me! I'm gonna try my best to streamline the appearance. Now its way to confusing. I'm also going to try to get sources for the article. Ltwin ( talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The membership numbers in this article appear to be inaccurate. The article says that one quarter of the world's Christians are Pentecostal but the Pew Forum article cited uses this figure for all charismatics, which presumably includes Catholics and members of other Protestant faiths, and they provide no source for this figure. The article states that there are 1.3 million Pentecostals in Canada, but the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada claims only 235,000 members. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 09:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The following two (three) passages conflict drastically:
Then we have beneath it a list of their numbers according to continents and countries, which yields to a total of 125 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.209.245 ( talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am merging this section with the "Denominations and adherents" one. I am also removing the list. If someone disagrees with me then just revert. Ltwin ( talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Archived discussions from 22 January 2003 through 2008. Note: discussions may be refactored.
Picky point about the Toronto Blessing and the Vineyard Movement. The Toronto church that "housed" the Blessing WAS a Vineyard church into the mid-90s, when the leaders of Toronto and the leaders of the Vineyard could not agree on a variety of issues, including authority issues, prophet vs. pastor issues, things like this. The Toronto church is not a Vinetard anymore, and the Vineyard stakes out a place that blends features of pentecostalism and features of evangelicalism. I am going to double-check this, then update the entry to reflect this. Professor 01:00, 22 January 2003
So, I'm trying to reconcile these two sentences:
Most major Pentacostal churches also accept the corollary that those who don't speak in tongues have not received the blessing of the Holy Spirit. [...] The idea that one is not saved unless one speaks in tongues is rejected by most major Pentecostal denominations.
[See December 1, 2003 revision]
I think that either:
Anyway around it, it's kind of a confusing little couplet. -- ESP 03:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pat Robertson was removed by anonymous user 68.159.71.33 with the emphatic claim that he's not Pentecostal. I suppose some Pentecostals would not want to claim him, but that is not sufficient reason to remove him. I checked several sources that all said he was originally Southern Baptist, but is now of the Pentecostal pursuasion. So unless 68.159.71.33 (or someone else) can come up with more justifictation for the change, I will return his name to this page after a couple days. Pollinator 01:53, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Noted: no response. Pollinator 13:00, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Some points. Pentecostalism is half a century older than Charismatics. Charismatism is a middle-class version of Pentecostalism, rejecting the obligation of speaking in tongues and the legalism. Most Charismatics and quite some Pentecostals have turned neo-Evangelicals, and are specifically called neo-Pentecostals. Neo-Evangelicals are considered heretical to various degrees by orthodox, conservative Evangelicals, specially by Reformed Evangelicals. I will modify the article accordingly if no one else does... [Unsigned comment by Leandrod 18:09, 5 May 2004]
I have removed Romania from the statistics section. An anonymous editor claimed that my statistics were inaccurate, and provided this source, and when I checked my original source, I found that I had mis-copied the percentage of the population (1.3) as the total Pentecostal population in millions. The error was mine, and I apologise. David Cannon 20:13, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To the anonymous user who keeps on reverting the statistics to those from the 1994 edition of Operation World: that edition is 10 years out of date. The latest edition is the one published in 2000, on which these statistics are based. If you disagree with the statistics in this book, please provide an alternative - up to date - source for your claims. If you can provide a more recent source, we can discuss that, but please DO NOT use an older source. Thank you. David Cannon 19:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I would (again) request our anonymous editor to stop using false sources. You say you got your latest figure of 50m from Johnson's 2001 Operation World - but page 3 of that source says 115m. The figure for Africa alone comes to more than 41m (page 21) and North America 21m (page 32) - these two continents alone have more than the 50m you claim. Factor in Latin America - 32m (page 34), Asia - 15m (page 41), Europe - 4m (page 52) and the Pacific - 3m (page 58), and your claims don't add up, according to the source you're claiming. I believe you are confused. You may dispute these statistics if you want to (they're not infallable) but please back up your claims with sources (post-2001) that can be checked. I WILL check any source you give me, as I have this one, and if you manufacture statistics out of thin air and MIS-attribute them to a particular source, I will keep on reverting you until you get tired. I'm serving notice that I myself will not get tired, so if you want to vandalize Wikipedia you're in for a marathon, not a sprint. David Cannon 12:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
User:68.89.219.152 removed a section that spoke about some Pentecostals not speaking in tongues for various reasons. I have reverted this because I think it is likely that some who call themselves Pentecostals do not speak in tongues for these reasons. Removing it is essentially stating that these people are not Pentecostals - which may be true for some people but not for everyone else. -- One Salient Oversight 01:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nothing about the handling of snakes? That's the funniest part. [Unsigned comment by User:192.175.173.94 19:30, 1 April 2005]
IMO, Pentecostalism, while largely decendend from Protestantism is not a part of it. The theology is different, and most importantly, the internal workings of congregrations is very different. There is certainly more different between Pentecostalism and Protestantism than between Restorationism and Protestantism (which are treated as being quite seperate). matturn 13:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure Pentecostalism differs from Fundamentalism as its stated here and as its defined by Wikipedia itself. I think this should be rephrased. -LuckyDay [Comment by User:63.13.225.20 07:21, 21 April 2005]
Hello. I am not a regular user of this page so I don't have an account. I myself am a Pentecostal believer. I was just wondering if it were perhaps possible to re-phrase the statement regarding women's ministry. It says in the article that it is contrary to the teachings of both Peter and Paul. I don't want to start an argument or anything, but wouldn't be a bit more appropriate for an encyplopedia to take a more neutral stand? It is debatable whether this is really the teaching of the Scriptures, Pentecostals most certainly believe it to be in harmony with the scriptures to allow women to minister. The article could state that Pentecostals allow women to minister, which seperates them from some other protestants with a high view of scripture, or something like that. God bless. Helgi. [Comment by User:81.82.220.98 18:26, 3 May 2005]
There is no discussion of the early church fathers with supporting quotations. I strongly believe there should be. Please see: www.victorious.org/sprgifts. ken 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I know nothing of this subject, so ill just dropp it here:
-- Striver 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always accompanied initially by the outward evidence of speaking in tongues. This is a major difference between Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians who believe that a Christian who is baptized in the Holy Spirit may exhibit other physical signs instead of speaking in tongues. The idea that one is not saved unless one speaks in tongues is rejected by most major Pentecostal denominations."
I'm a little confused. If the last sentence is true, then it seems like the rest of the paragraph must not be. [Unsigned comment by User:12.4.255.195 19:37, 12 December 2005]
In the UK it is very rare for Pentecostal churches to exercise women's ministry, whereas one can often find non-pentecostal evangelical churches with women ministers. It follows that women's ministry - either for or against - is not characteristic of either pentecostal or non-pentecostal churches in the UK. -pftaylor 01 04 2006 [Comment by User:83.105.70.250 11:10, 4 January 2006]
I'm not sure what the following sentence is supposed to say as it doesn't seem to be in context in the place it is currently in - " The True Jesus Church, an indigenous church founded by Chinese believers on the mainland but whose headquarters is now in Taiwan. " [Unsigned comment by User:Johnmarkh 22:04, 18 December 2005]
From what I've read about fundamentalism, it appears that there's plenty of room for it to include Pentecostalism, even the distinctives of Pentecostalism. I say this because the doctrine of "cessationism" (which claims that tongues, prophecy, and miracles have passed out of usage) is not a prerequisite for fundamentalism. Pentecostals are obviously not cessationist in their doctrine. Also, there's no particular worship style requirement of fundamentalism as well. Just because the majority of self-identifying fundamentalists are cessationist, have rigid worship practices, and believe in the eternal security of the believer, doesn't mean that those who differ are, by definition, not fundamentalist. Historically, many fundamentalist leaders have been very biased against Pentecostals, but in reality this was due more to personal revulsion than genuine claims of the incompatibility of Pentecostal distinctives with "fundamentalist doctrine". In other words, being cessationist doesn't make you a "true" fundamentalist" any more than speaking in tongues. Pentecostals meet every definition of fundamentalism that I can recall. [Unsigned comment by User:Jlujan69 23:02, 18 January 2006]
There is little material here on criticism of pentecostalism. We used to have a subarticle which has recently been deleted. However, in that article, and in previous versions of the history, is a lot of material that could profitably be merged here in some form. See Talk:Charismatic movement/Criticism salvage and this version. — Matt Crypto 16:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I heard Penti's allow homos to be in the church and that this practice is encouraged. Please explain. As well, what is up with these Penti's believing in beating their kids, spare not the rod is what they say. [Unsigned commment by
User:131.137.245.200 19:34, 9 May 2006]
[The striked comment above by
User:131.137.245.200 was deleted by
User:Dcmcgov and replaced with the following comment.]
Deleted the unsigned and very ignorant text from this location. Dcmcgov 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Spring 2006 issue of Christian History & Biography (Issue 90) has an article on Pentacostalism on pages 46-47, plus a snippet on page 8. No time to do this article tonight, but I'm letting you all know in case you want to borrow a copy from a library/friend and include relevant facts. GRBerry 02:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph as it does not reflect the views of most Pentecostal denominations. It may be views held by some (such as Oneness which is discussed later in the article).
Any comments? Johnmarkh 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I suffered child abuse at the hands of a pastor, I'm positive that thousands of others have also. Why is it not mentioned anywhere here? (Sorry for signing with an IP, but I really don't feel comfortable going public about this.) 211.30.71.59 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I've since retitled this section, there's no controversial section what so ever and .. well, pentecostals aren't seen as a very sane Christian sect where I come from? I was beaten for playing with He-Man because it 'was the devil'. I was encouraged to cry for forgiveness at the altar and told that only the parsons wife can speak in tongues because we all had the devil in us but she was the only pure one? I'm sure these are contraversial issues which would form a common theme in a lot of churches in general, but definitely should be addressed where brought. 211.30.71.59 08:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently published a mammoth 10-nation study on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic Movement. It can be found in their page on Pentecostalism, which has some other stories and studies which can be of some use to this article. The executive summary may be viewed on the website at the second link provided above, and the entire document may be downloaded and viewed as a pdf free of charge from a link on that same page. I think using data from that site can significantly increase some information on this page, particularly pertaining to Pentecostalism outside of the US. Hairouna 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the second post here, there is a sentence that appears to be incomplete in the Pentecostal Denominations section. There is also a sentence after it that does not appear to be referenced, and seems a little out of place. I have added internal notes to this effect. BenC7 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Most classical Pentecostals believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always accompanied initially by the outward evidence of speaking in tongues. It is considered a liberalizing tendency to teach contrary to this historic position.
I was, as a matter of fact, researching Pentecostalism as a preliminary to attending a service when I read the above excerpt. At first, I was put off at the prospect of the necessity of speaking in tongues before one gains community "acceptance", as it were (maybe it only pertains to the inner community). However, the contention evidenced by the phrasing of the second sentence struck me as an illuminating example of the wiki-process (or some other similarly titled concept). I could assume this may have been a recent near-edit-war, and some editors can specifically recall how the sentence came to be, but it may also have developed slowly and peacefully. I don't know, and that unknown makes it sound like a good story.
In my last analysis, I can see Pentacostalism rifting into the classical liberal and conservative camps. Others have analyzed how other such conflicts have shaped up over time, and those would probably also make good stories (provided there's a good story-teller!). Xaxafrad 02:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
...And then I read the rest of the article (wow, the whole speaking in tongues issue really is a hot topic). Xaxafrad 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I just wanted to explain my somewhat large edit. There are differing doctrines among Pentecostal denominations and I added some Pentecostal doctrines that were not previously represented on this page. I also changed "Pentecostals believe. . ." to "Many Pentecostals believe. . ." in those various instances where I added doctrines. I fixed some grammar, added some Scripture references, and rearranged some of the article to improve readability and flow. Spiritanointed 23:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC) spiritanointed
Why was the link to the PLDS removed from the See Also section. It certainly fits. [Unsigned comment by User:66.191.17.168 00:27, 26 March 2007]
"Charismatic Christians, at least in the early days of the movement, tended to remain in their respective denominations." This last sentence in the introduction does not seem relevant enough to be in the introductory section. Is also badly worded. - Fendersmasher 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
An example:
Some Pentecostals have modified the view teaching that Spirit baptism is not considered a second chronological work of grace, but a second aspect of the Holy Spirit's ministry.
I'm not an informed reader in the sense that I am not a Christian and am not familiar with the nuances of Christian theological debates and the apertaining vocabulary. But I am more informed than the average reader, insofar as I do know a little about the history of Evangelical Christianity and the various doctrines of Protestantism. I can make some sense of this article, but parts of it are difficult to follow. And using a phrase like "a second chronological work of grace" in an encylcopedia intended for general reading, without further elaboration, strikes me as inexcusable. Soft helion 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I have attended a pentecostal many times they have religous convictions.a lot of them.Women no pants,makeup,haircuts,and many other things.Men no shorts,facial hair,also many other things.its hard.Please dont be offened by this.i have pentecostal friends and family.i also attended the church for most of my childhood.THX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!just wanted to say that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.159.74.66 ( talk) 00:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
I wish to nominate this article because I believe it is a class FA article, and is a very interesting and well established look at Pentecostalism. It failed to achieve this in 2004, but 3 years on I believe it should be a Featured Article. tmjsmith 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Statistics by their very nature can be referenced and substantiated. The entries that are appearing at the end of the list under the heading of "While not as large as some of the above organizations the following have made quite an impact on Pentecostalism:" is a very subjective statement. Who are these organisations? What is the 'impact' they have made? Where are the references to demonstrate that they are important organisation in the Pentecostal movement either in terms of numbers or influence? Looking at the current entries I believe that it is just becoming a list where any church or denomination can be listed for self-publicity. I would suggest that this list be either removed or properly referenced. Any comments Nshimbi 08:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a type of article that is so long and detailed that is does not serve very well for readers who only intend to pick up a short overview. If there was a way to check reading time stats I think you'd find that most people would read up to a page at most, preferring to stop after 2 or 3 paragraphs. Therefore it's important to have a highly readable overview of just the key (and/or most interesting) information at the top. It would be good to have 2 or 3 short paragraphs which summarize the flood of detailed information that follows in the rest of the article. Right now it's very hard to get any memorable information from this article. One either has to devote considerable time to studying it in detail, or leave nearly empty handed. 75.63.62.178 18:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Echoing another's desire for readability, especially amongst those who are not acquainted with Christian theology can I ask what people think regarding the use of 'Holy Ghost' and 'Holy Spirit'.
I think it would help readability and comprehension if we stuck to one or the other. I was going to simply change all useage to one but though I'd better talk about it first as I am aware that this could be controversial , especially with those who prefer certain editions of the Holy Bible.
I propose changing all entries to 'Holy Spirit' solely on the basis of consistency within this document and within WP (for example the page for Holy Ghost is a re-direct to Holy Spirit) —Preceding unsigned rgds, ||:) johnmark† 13:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I hate it when I forget to sign my entries!
Whilst I think it is right to note that the orthodoxy of Pentecostalism is questioned by some in other denominations I think the referencing on these paragraphs is somewhat suspect. In the section that states “there is a loud expression of opposition from those commonly known to be part of "Mainstream Christianity" (Oriental Orthodoxy, Byzantine Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and mainline Protestants)” I have two issues. Firstly, the reference link is to a site that is of ex-Pentecostals, but there is nothing to demonstrate that these people speak in any official capacity for the branches of Christianity that are cited. Secondly, It is questionable whether the groups lumped together under the title of ‘Mainstream Christianity’ would necessarily agree that the other groups have a legitimacy either.
Similarly, the second reference in this paragraph also purports to be on behalf of ‘Mainstream Christianity’, but of examination seems to be the view of a small group who seem to have no capacity to speak on behalf of the larger body.
I would suggest that this section needs to be substantially rewritten. Yes, the criticism should be noted, but it is wrong to make it appear these two referenced sites are anything more than criticism from smaller groups. Also, I would suggest that the paragraph on criticism should not be the third section, but, following the placing of similar paragraphs in other Wikipedia articles, much further down in the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshimbi ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem as we've stated has to do with taking the contributor's word for XX church group having such and such millions without any references. Ok that's where we are at now. As Nshimbi said the responisibility falls to the editors to include references for the statistics should they attempt to approximate a certain figure. Otherwise the section could be a total figure (hopefully we can find one from an accurate source - so far it is 150 million with no references) with the major churches as contributors to that figure and NOT state individual church numbers. However the arguement over WHO gets their church in the list will no doubt come again. Any other ideas are welcome. Darrenss 12:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the last entry on the article in the criticism section for several reasons. I couldn't tell WHAT the specific argument was, there were no references to place an object of criticism. By all means contribute but please go somewhere with your edits. Practical criticism is fine I'm not trying to deny critical views but it at least it needs some good reason to be in the article - WP:ATT. Let me know if you think I'm wrong, maybe some of those comments should be included but presented in a WP:NPOV. Darrenss 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I checked the reference given for the AOG church which is supposed to support a figure of 54 million. Unless my eyes are wrong the total only includes U.S totals which are around 2.5 million found at the bottom graph on the link. Darrenss 03:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I revised this edit because of the following statement:
[To this first group, speaking in tongues is the sign of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and is necessary for salvation. They also believe you must repent, and be born again through water baptism by immersion in Jesus name in order to recieve salvation. This belief comes directly from the New Testament account given in Acts 2;38]
"born again through water baptism by immersion" - This statement seems odd to me? I don't think you can write this as any kind of majority teaching for this article, for as much as I know, the majority is, as the initial salvation experience anyway, "saved by faith without works", usually done in some kind of sinners prayer. Anyone else got a take on this? Darrenss 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears in recent weeks that members of this organisation have decided that the Wikipedia's article on Pentecostalism is a method of promoting and marketing their denomination. May I remind them that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and states it is neither and advertising tool or directory. Each time the International Circle of Faith have posted up something it has been removed by one editor or another as it is either self promotion or the claim is can not be easily verified, please could members of this organisation refrain from using this aricle to promote themselves unless their inclusion meets the requirements for an encylopedia. Thank you Nshimbi 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's take this as a for instance:
"Pentecostals believe it is essential to repent of their sins, be baptized in the name of Jesus, believe in Jesus Christ as Savior in order to obtain salvation and in the infilling of the Holy Ghost."
Pentecostals do not believe that. Some Pentecostals, particularly Oneness and Jesus Only Pentecostals, do believe that, but it is a serious misrepresentation of Pentecostalism to make a blanket claim that "Pentecostals believe..." when not all, or even perhaps the majority, of Pentecostals share the belief. For instance, the Assemblies of God teach that neither water baptism (Jesus' name or Trinitarian) or speaking in tongues is required for salvation.
Editors, please take care and be sensitive. Trinitarians are people too, and heck, some of them are even Pentecostals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 ( talk) 21:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we are using the archaic term Holy Ghost rather than the modern Holy Spirit in this article? If there is, then we should at least be consistent. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Many major evangelical groups (e.g., the National Association of Evangelicals) would not consider all Pentecostals to be within the realm of evangelicalism. This is not based on the phenomenon of gifts of the Spirit, but rather on the view of God that some Pentecostals hold. Most evangelical groups profess the Trinity and hold belief in this view of God as a criterion for membership. Oneness Pentecostals would obviously be excluded from this designation in some cases. Therefore, I've removed the word "Evangelical" from the first sentence of this article, since the entirety of Pentecostalism cannot be considered orthodox or evangelical, even if various denominations within it can be. It's kind of deceptive to say that "Pentecostalism is a movement within evangelical Christianity," when the matter seems to be in dispute. [Unsigned comment by User:64.132.242.232 20:39, 19 February 2008]
From the article: "Pentecostalism was estimated to number around 115 million followers worldwide". How can this be true when majority of sources place these figures much higher? In the Report of catholic Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity the number of Pentecostals is estimated to be about 165 million in Asia alone [4] , while aqccording to National Catholic Reporter Pentecostals "skyrocketed throughout the late 20th century to at least 380 million, by the most conservative estimate, and perhaps as many as 600 million." [5] Now I wouldn't regard the Catholic Church as a sympathizer of Pentecostal movement, so these figures can be reliable, and in my opinion numbers much higher than 115 milions should be included into the article. Pentecostalism as as a movement is very fragmented, and it is impossible to estimate its membership only by counting figures from major denominations, because there are thousands of smaller and bigger pentecostal denominations and communities throughout the world, and additionally many of them are unregistered. Ammon86 ( talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Originally, this may have been a high quality article. Now, it is hard to follow, repetitive, and not properly cited. Over the next few weeks, I am going to attempt to improve things significantly. Is anyone with me? Lori belle ( talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This site was used as a reference that Pentecostalism was the fastest growing segment of Christianity. Leaving aside the fact that such claims are usually very doubtful (virtually every minority sport claims to be the fastest growing), does anyone know anything about the reliability of the site? Who is running it? DJ Clayworth ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the following notice at the top of this page:
Why does anyone think this should be at the top of the page outside of the rest of the article? This belongs in the introduction, if any where. This statement isn't even necessarily accurate. This definition is a classical pentecostal definition of faith, but other pentecostals may not view tongues as the initial evidence. In other words, some pentecostals do beleive that you can show other signs of being filled not just speaking in tongues. Any way these issues are addressed in the article so why is this statement needed? Ltwin ( talk) 19:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction, someone wrote that one of the main categories is Finished Work pentecostals. There is no source to cite (though there aren't sources for the other ones either) but I have never heard of this category. I have heard of trinitarians and oneness, but being a pentecostal my whole life I have never heard of these kind pentecostals. Can anyone out there cite sources for the introduction so we can know whats true and whats not. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltwin ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone with only IP address wrote into the article: 'Hillsong forever' and so on... - user:tothaa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.123.28 ( talk) 08:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article needs refining. Also, what happened to the tradition of putting citations inside quote marks?. Several times, the narrator looses neutrality, making the article read like propaganda, for example:
Outpourings of the holy ghost is a statement for a church document, not a neutral, informative entry in an encyclopaedia. The sentence assumes that there is a holy ghost, indicative and religiously re-affirming statements should not be part of the article, this is a statement of faith,not a unbiased presentation of belief. If the pentecostal movement considered it so, then a citation is required and the statement should be a quote.
Suggest change to:
and this would then require a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabulos ( talk • contribs) 05:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The Beliefs and Theology sections should be combined and a new initiative to improve this article should be started. Please help me! I'm gonna try my best to streamline the appearance. Now its way to confusing. I'm also going to try to get sources for the article. Ltwin ( talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The membership numbers in this article appear to be inaccurate. The article says that one quarter of the world's Christians are Pentecostal but the Pew Forum article cited uses this figure for all charismatics, which presumably includes Catholics and members of other Protestant faiths, and they provide no source for this figure. The article states that there are 1.3 million Pentecostals in Canada, but the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada claims only 235,000 members. -- The Four Deuces ( talk) 09:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The following two (three) passages conflict drastically:
Then we have beneath it a list of their numbers according to continents and countries, which yields to a total of 125 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.209.245 ( talk) 19:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am merging this section with the "Denominations and adherents" one. I am also removing the list. If someone disagrees with me then just revert. Ltwin ( talk) 17:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |