Talk:Cessationism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Change of headings

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge proposals 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History/Development 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Types