Talk:Pentecostalism

Nominated Article

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)

I think the article is a mess and is nowhere near FA status. The History section in particular is hard to follow. It jumps around chronologically, begins discussing theology and schisms before the Azusa St. Revival, and has multiple claimants to the "first" or "beginning of" Pentecostalism. It's overly long, uses too much unexplained erudite theological terms, and lacks cohesiveness. Just my 2 cents.Armandtanzarian 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

UK women's ministry

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

That's probably just an anomaly. Hairouna 02:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex than that. Some limit women's ministry to certain areas, some allow / encourage women into equal roles but have practically it has not been put it into practice and senior women leaders have not emerged, some emphasise man/woman partnership/team role, a few have women pastors. rgds, ||:) johnmark† 22:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

True Jesus Church Taiwan

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. "

Pentecostalism differs from Fundamentalism

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 04 21 2005

While they have the same political agendas, their style of worship and doctrines are completely different. Fundamentalists generally have rigid doctrines, while many Pentecostal doctrines are rather fluid, and can change from church to church, pastor to pastor, and sometimes from year to year. There are no "new manifestations" in Baptist churches. - aexapo 12/26/05

I've removed the phrase "and by adopting an Arminian rather than Calvinist view of Soteriology and Grace." from the definition of how Pentecostalism differs from Fundamentalism. Pentecostalism is generally Arminian, but Fundamentalism isn't distinctly either. Fundamentalists fall into Arminian, Calvinist and all sorts of in-between categories. - JoshuaC87 16/11/2006

date on the formal unification event

Whew! I am pooped! I need a date on the formal unification event, the great big with the foot-washing etc. It may have been 1997, not 1998. wiki wiki wiki!

Nice work. Two questions.

• What about the geographic spread of the pentecostal religion?
• Would it not be more proper to name the page pentecostalism?

400 million figure

Where do you get the 400 million figure from? The Hadden lecture says it's nine million. --LMS

Ha! Got 400 million from the web. I have seen estimates as high as 500 million. Either of these figures would have to include all of the charismatic subfamilies. The two new links on the page are excellent. Hadden's 9 million is US, and is definitely low. He only counts "established" churches. There are *lots* of independent congregations in this tradition. 400 million is probably high, even worldwide.

Pentecostalism is less a denomination than a family of beliefs and worship traditions. In a nutshell, add Acts 6 to the Nicene Creed and you have the basis of doctrine, add electric guitars, a drum set and (optionally) a brass section to the choir, presto, worship (Yes, can be very loud, as in "raise the roof" loud. Someone explained it to me once:

"We don't believe Satan should have all the good music.")

Pentecostalism might be a better name, maybe even Modern Pentecostalism. Somebody else can refactor, rename whatever, or I will do it later.

The spread is world-wide, but it appears to be growing fastest in the Americas.

Charismatic movement

Do you want to mention anything here about the charismatic movement? I believe this is basically pentecostal ideas and worship styles coming into other more "mainline" denominations. Also, do the figures include charismatics? That might be fair enough if you're just counting Christians who use drums and electric guitars and perhaps "speak in tongues", but it also runs the risk of double counting a lot of people, depending on how the numbers are used. --Wesley

I can't do it, because I don't have the numbers, but a better job needs to be done between distinguishing between the Pentecostal Church and the pentecostal movement. Something also should be mentioned about oneness pentecostalism (or whatever it's called), which has a different view of the Trinity than do "orthodox" Christians.

just copied the above discussion from the Pentecostal Talk page, since Pentecostal now redirects to Pentecostalism. Wesley

Toronto Blessing and the Vineyard Movement

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 Vineyard 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

If speak in tongues then have not received the blessing of the Holy Spirit

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.

I think that either:

1. One of them is wrong
2. There's some subtle difference here between "receiving the blessing of the Holy Spirit" and "being saved"
3. There's supposed to be some implicit difference between "churches" and "denominations" (that is, "church" isn't being used as a synonym for "denomination", but for a congregation)

Anyway around it, it's kind of a confusing little couplet. --ESP 03:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See the article / talk pages at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baptism_of_the_Holy_Spirit for a further discussion of saved vs speaking in tongues Johnmarkh 21:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pat Robertson

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)

Comment - Pat Robertson's listing would be appropriate. (Seenitall 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

Pentecostalism is half a century older than Charismatics

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...

At the beginning of the article, it says, "Pentecostalism may be viewed as a subset of the Charismatic movement which may also include Catholic members." Is this true because of the number of Charismatics as compared to Pentecostals, or should this say, "Charismaticism, which may also include Catholic members, may be viewed as a subset of the Pentecostal movement"? The Pentecostal movement was around long before the Charismatic movement. Just wondering! Raina 07:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a complex issue. As a Pentecostal, I personally view the two movements as separate but intertwined. They have many common features, but (by and large) they have very different historical roots. There has, of course, been a lot of interaction between the two movements over the years, and the line of demarcation is sometimes blurred. Nevertheless, I would not say that either movement is a subset of the other. Rather, I would sat that each movement is self-contained, but influences the other a great deal. I hope this helps. David Cannon 11:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's try the statements:

All Pentacostals are Charismatics -true as far as I know, so Pentacostals are a subset of Charismatics

All Charismatics are Pentacostals -not true, many exceptions including Catholic Charismatic Rmhermen 12:23, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Imagine three circles intertwined. (eg the symbol on John Bonham's drums[1]) There you have a good representation of how Charismatics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals are related, but separate. They share a great deal in common, but I do not think you could call one a "subset" of the other without being unfair to everything. One Salient Oversight 13:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the definition of the word, charismatic, has changed in recent years. When I first heard of it, it was definitely something other than pentecostalism. What is considered, now, to be its definition, and what is the modern definition of Pentecostal? Raina 20:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am guessing that One Salient Oversight has a different definition of both Charismatic and Pentecostal than I but without further explanation I can't tell what it is. Having tried to read the Charismatic article hear is no real help. Does anyone follow what it is saying? The usage I am familiar with calls all who beleive in the ongoing practice of gifts as Charismatics, regardless of any other practices or beliefs. This would include all Pentecostals. Rmhermen 15:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think Rmherman is quite right at this point. I've been trying for months to come up with a definition of the difference between the two movements. Maybe it's just because it is really hard nowadays to work out the difference. Regardless, the article probably needs a major clean-up. One Salient Oversight 23:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Romania

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)

Numbers

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)

• COMMENT It would seeem to to me that the problem can be solved with footnotes. If we have two different sources they could both be in the footnote. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

I would agree with you, but these are not two different sources! They are the same source, but two different editions (one more recent). When encyclopedias, factbooks, and so on are updated, the newer figures are universally accepted to be more accurate than the older ones. This is essentially the equivalent of saying there are 3 billion people on earth and citing the 1960 World Book Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pentecostals who don't speak in tongues

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)

If a person attends a Pentecostal church, for example as recent convert or as a child of a Pentecostal parent, but has not as yet experienced the Baptism in the Holy Spirit they may still be referred to as a Pentecostal....the condition for membership is usually that the person is 'ardently expecting and ernestly seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit ..of which speaking in tongues is the normally expected initial evidence....Johnmarkh 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Snakes?

Nothing about the handling of snakes? That's the funniest part.

What about the Church of the First Born? It believes in handling snakes and faith healing per the Scriptures. Give me some insight please.Letermae 17:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pentecostalism isn't a subset of Protestantism

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)

As a Pentecostal myself, I VERY strongly disagree. Frankly, I know hardly any Pentecostals who would endorse your opinion.David Cannon 22:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a non-Pentecostal who has attended Pentecostal churches, I fully concur with David on this. Some major similarities are as follows:

• A belief in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (except for Oneness Pentecostals)
• A belief in the substitutionary atonement of Christ
• A belief that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only two sacraments (some Pentecostals would disagree on this)

they're not sacraments, they're ordinancesElEsElRdRyElSdS 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• A belief that those who place their faith in Jesus Christ are saved and are assured salvation.

I would have to disagree with this. I attended a very conservative Pentecostal church for one year, and I can tell you that the pastor spoke as if he spoke to people that were all converted and saved. But he also preached that they could lose their salvation. It is known among many (don't know who though, but I would have to name Independent Baptists) that they teach you can lose your salvation. They base themselves on what Jesus said in Matthew that he who endures til the end shall be saved (but he was talking about the Tribulation people). They also base themselves on certain verses in James and Hebrews (which was once again written to the Hebrews and those that find themselves in the Tribulation). They state that sinning causes one to lose their salvation, but they fail to say what sins, or how many times one has to do it. It is very abstract. What they failed to see is that Paul said those who are born-again, God will not impute sin to them. Good works are the inevitable result of grace, but if we sin, we don't lose our salvation (for grace will abound).19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also worthy to note that not all churches may think like that, for this church that I attended for four years never talked about it. But they also never talked about salvation either, or how to be saved. Though it may seem that they think you can't lose your salvation, but be careful for mental reservation. What they say might not be what they really believe (like those pseudo King James Onlyites who back the TR instead of the KJV), and vice versa.ElEsElRdRyElSdS 19:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Pentecostalism is a very diverse body. On the topic of whether one can lose salvation, Pentecostal theology spans the spectrum. The majority view is that we are saved by faith, and that that salvation can be lost as a result of losing faith. That is not quite the the same as saying that it is lost through sin. I have never met a Pentecostal who preaches that salvation is lost every time we sin (although I am aware that some exist), but the majority viewpoint is that if we stop believing in the Atonement (the vicarious death of Jesus for our sins), we lose our salvation. (Calvinists, on the other hand, would usually argue that those who lose their faith never really had it in the first place, while Arminians would say that they did have it, but lost it). This slants much of the Pentecostal movement somewhat towards Arminianism. But Arminianism is recognized as a subset of Protestantism - John Wesley was an Arminian - and, come to think of it, many of the early Pentecostal theologians had a Methodist background, so the Wesleyan influence is quite significant. David Cannon 11:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I think saying Pentacostalism has by and large supporting Arminian views, may be all thats needed. I just thought that if there was a different edge (majority wise) to "how" a person can be saved and finally lost that might of been worth noting in the article. The church I used to attend taught you can lose your salvation if you sin and do not repent, it is even in their statement of faith. I didn't think that was the majority view though.Darrenss 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is a popular doctrine among pentacostal churches that a person can lose their salvation because of sin. I'm not sure how widespead this theology is though or whether it should get a mention in the article. If that is the majority view than maybe it is worth noting. Any thoughts??Darrenss 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• A congregational church political model (usually).

--One Salient Oversight 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm an ex-"Restorationalist" who always considered myself a Protestant, and was then involved with a couple of Pentecostal churches for a while. Here in Australia at least, most of the "spiritual decendents" of the Stone-Campbell movement consider themselves Protestants. (Luther, Calvin and the other clearly Protestant fathers believed as Stone, Campbell and other "Restorationalists" that they were "restoring" a purer version of Christianity).

The Pentecostals certainly don't think of themselves as Protestants, although they consider Protestants Christian (a status not usually confered to Catholics). And they run their churches completely differently, usually use different worships styles, concentrate on completely different parts of the scripture, etc. In Australia, for instance, the Pentateuch based "Prosperity Doctrine" is preached by most Pentecostal churches, but few Protestant ones.

In response to One Salient Oversight, in my experience of Australian Pentecostal churches (and what I've heard from others):

• They don't care much about the nature of the Trinity - the Holy Spirit is seen to represent the entire Godhead on earth.
• They don't have a commonly understood concept of "sacraments". Any action the Holy Spirit is involved in is as good as any other. The Lord's Supper is irregularly or seldom practiced. Baptism isn't seen as a requirement to be saved, so it doesn't have a high level of importance. It's treated like Lutherans and other child baptists treat Confirmation.
• They believe in autocratic Pastors or Husband-and-Wife Pastor teams running their churches, with very little involvement from the congregration (like some of the "early-Protestant" Anglicans and Lutherans, but unlike "modern Protestants").

This may of course not be the case in the US and other places.

matturn 12:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't know what kind of "Pentecostal" church you've run into. What you're talking about bears no comparison to any that I've been involved with, not even by a wild stretch of the imagination. I do know that there are all sorts of weird groups that have misappropriated the "Pentecostal" label, but if you deal with any recognized Pentecostal denomination (Assemblies of God, Elim, Apostolic, etc) you'll find they disown these flakey groups.

BTW, I don't think you removed Andrea Mason from the list for any good reason. Deleting chunks of information without explanation is considered vandalism. If she is no longer the FFP leader, please cite your source. At any rate, she led the party into the last election and as such, is (at least historically) a significant figure who should not be deleted from the list. David Cannon 14:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I've been involved with a couple of AoG churches, making up the majority of my Pentecostal experience. From one with about a dozen regular attendees, to one that gets about a 1000 people turning up each Sunday. They (and those inbetween) matched my description, in my eyes anyway.

Even if you think the severity of my statements is incorrect, I think most who'd observered a number of Australian (well Victorian ones at least) Protestant and AoG churches would agree that the two groups differ in those areas. While the "Restorationalist" ones are nearly indistingushable from mutually acknowledged Protestant ones.

As for removing Andrea Mason, I agree in hindsite that was rash. My source for her not being the designated leader - www.familyfirst.com.au - it's there on the homepage.

IMO she was never a major figure in the party, despite being named it's leader. During the one campaign she lead the party, she hardly represented the party in the national media at all. And who did? The party's founder, long time AoG internal politics master and semi-retired leader of the highly popular Paradise church - Andrew Evans. Andrea however, had much less experience in these circles, and I think it's unlikely she ever wielded much power. She did have experience as Andrew's personal assistant though, which I strongly suspect served her well in her shortly held position. matturn 11:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello Matt. Thanks for your comments.

I, too, am from Australia and my experience of Pentecostalism has been mainly Australian. I would still beg to differ in a major way to the points you have made.

The Trinity. If you look at the statements of faith for many of these churches you will discover that they are quite orthodox. I realise that statements of faith are not always what they seem, but I think that if you pressed individual Penetcostals hard on the Trinity - especially their leaders - you will probably discover that they are reasonably orthodox. Many Pentecostal churches in their meetings may emphasize the Holy Spirit over and above the other two members of the Trinity, but this does not mean they do not care for this doctrine. It's just that they may not talk about it often.

The Sacraments. Both Baptism and the Lord's Supper would be mentioned as well in their statements of faith. Many individuals may not fully understand them, and nor may their pastors, but this is not uncommon amongst non-Pentecostal protestants either! The regularity of celebrating the Lord's Supper is something that many Protestant churches differ on (Presbyterians do it 4 times per year, Anglicans do it 4 times a week sometimes). Your statement Baptism isn't seen as a requirement to be saved smells quite fishy to me and reminds me of Baptismal Regeneration which is certainly not a majority belief in the Protestant church. Moreover, Pedobaptist protestant churches such as the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Methodists are not considered "un-protestant" by those who hold to believer's baptism.

Autocratic Pastors. I would agree with you that this is a phenomena that is more common amongst Pentecostal churches than mainstream protestants. However I know that there are many non-autocratic Pentecostal churches and some very autocratic and controlling non-Pentecostal churches.

Lest you think that I am an apologist for the Pentecostal movement, think again. I wrote the bulk of Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief because I personally have major problems with their doctrine and behaviour.

God bless,

--One Salient Oversight 13:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding womens ministry

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.

I removed the POV sentence, which has been added somewhere along the way, likely by a Fundamentalist, which illustrates the difference between Pentecostals and Fundamentalists, if it was. Certainly Pentecostals would not allow women ministers, if they thought it were contrary to scripture, so it is, as you say, debatable. Pollinator 18:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Is it not contrary? Paul DID say expressly that a woman was not to teach, or have authority over a man!! Why be "neutral" as you put it, and say that his writings are of no revalance......or use to belivers today?

He also said that speaking in toungues was not edifying, and thus should not be done.. like if I was to comment here in Cebuano... dili mo makasabut unsay akong sulti! But you are edified if I put it understandably, in English. (BTW- I am an RP-MK....All MKs come see me in mkplanet.com) Warbler- June 14, 2005

A glaring ommission

There is no discussion of the early church fathers with supporting quotations.

I strongly believe there should be.

Please see: http://www.victorious.org/sprgifts.htm

ken 17:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I fixed the ommission

I added:

Dr. Dale A. Robbins writes in regards to charasmatic beliefs that Church history argues against the idea that charismatic gifts went away shortly after the apostolic age. Dr. Robbins quotes the early church father Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) as writing the following,"...we hear many of the brethren in the church who have prophetic gifts, and who speak in tongues through the spirit, and who also bring to light the secret things of men for their benefit [word of knowledge]...". Dr. Robbins also cites Irenaues writing the following, "When God saw it necessary, and the church prayed and fasted much, they did miraculous things, even of bringing back the spirit to a dead man." According to Dr. Robbins Tertullian (ca. 155–230) reported similar incidents as did Origen (ca. 182 - 251), Eusebius (ca. 275 – 339), Firmilian (ca. 232-269), and Chrysostom (ca. 347 - 407).[2]

ken 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Hi

I know nothing of this subject, so ill just dropp it here:

Pentecostalism - Mother of Charismaticism

Randles says that this shift in hope "began as a trickle in evangelical and Pentecostal circles...(and now) triumphalism... (is)... predominant." So today we have Dominion theory, the Reconstruction movement, Kingdom Now, and so on. All came from Pentecostalism. [3]

--Striver 04:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this a contradiction?

"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.

The term "baptism in the Holy Spirit" is used by Pentecostals as an experience/event separate from conversion, when we are regenerated, receive the New Birth and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Hairouna 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is an outward evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. I don't believe that yet still consisder myself a Pentecostal. Strawberry Island 05:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Pentecostalism and Fundamentalism

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.

What definitions of fundamentalism have you in mind? Hairouna 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

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)

Deleted the unsigned and very ignorant text from this location. Dcmcgov 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dcmcgov, it is not your position to censor the writings of editors. It's not up to us to judge whether someone is right or wrong, or to act thereupon based on our own judgements. Freedom of speech is the founding stone upon which Wikipedia (and civilisation as a whole) was born, to deny that is to deny the foundation of liberty itself. If it was patent nonsense or vandalism, state so underneath it but leave it as it is. Jachin 12:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

History

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 am confused about one sentence under history. I came to this page to find out about snake handling in pentecostalism. The one or two sentences about it are strange. It seems to be a series of missing pieces of information in the paragraph. Please correct it soon. anniid 04:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

removal of text

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).

"Unlike some believe, Pentecostalism believes that there is no Holy Trinity but that the Godhead is one God. Pentecostal doctrine states that Jesus is the Holy Father robed in flesh and is not a separate entity or deity. Pentecostalism does not follow tradition and passed down practices but obtains every belief from the Bible. It is also stated that every belief that Pentecostal believers have is straight from the Bible. And Pentecostal followers also believe that, unlike many think, water baptism is for the remission of sins as found in Acts 2:38, not only as an outward profession of faith."

Any comments Johnmarkh 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No reference of controversies?

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)

I've been a Pentecostal for a long time, and I have NEVER come across anything like what you've just described. I HAVE, however, had such rumours thrown in my face by NON-Pentecostals. As for the abuse, I'm terribly sorry such things happened to you. But Pentecostal churches are not the only churches where such abuses occur. It's a tragedy that afflicts Christendom as a whole, so its inclusion in an article dedicated solely to Pentecostalism would be inappropriate. David Cannon 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your apology was kind, but uneccesary. I'm much older and well, at risk of sounding insensitive (to my own sensibilities if that?) it didn't bother me because I knew no different. Abusive behaviour is a problem systemically in all religions though, not just in Christendom by any means. Yet it's something that the Roman Catholic article has definitely addressed thoroughly, yet furthermore all religion pages have criticism sections except Pentecostalism and a lot of neo-Christian movements. Further as much as I'd like to assume good faith (AGF) I can on this talk page alone see two instances of censorship and POV pushing, which causes even more alarm and concern.  :/ 211.30.71.59 12:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Data from the Pew Forum

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)

Odd sentences

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)

An observation and reflection of communal editing

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)

A somewhat large edit

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

PLDS in See Also?

Why was the link to the PLDS removed from the See Also section. It certainly fits.

Charismatic Christians sentence in introduction

The last sentence in the introduction does not seem relevant enough to be in the introductory section. Is also badly worded. "Charismatic Christians, at least in the early days of the movement, tended to remain in their respective denominations." -Fendersmasher 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excessive Jargon

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)

When you are immersed in church lingo and theology it becomes difficult to see what it difficult to understand for the "unchurched". Nevertheless, excessive jargon is unacceptable. I'm not sure how else to talk about this, however. Namely because it is not my own doctrine and so I don't want to mess up the content. Spiritanointed 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an academic and fairly well read individual I must agree that this page is almost impossible for the uninitiated to follow. I came to this article after reading about the Popes visit to Brazil and the large defection of the catholic church to Pentecostalism. I tried very hard but failed to get any clear answer to my original question "What is Pentecostalism?" Someone needs to write a clear lay opening for this article a strip the religious jargon.Illuminant 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pentecost

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).

Denominational Statistics

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)

I agree, but if you go to the Wiki artilces about some of these churches you will discover

"The Free Apostolic Church of Pentecost is the biggest Greek pentecostal church founded by Dr. Leonidas Feggos in 1965, and now counting more than 140 churches, 200 assemblies and over than 20,000 believers in Greece"

"The Revival Centres International are a pentecostal church with headquarters in Melbourne Australia and around 300 centres in 14 countries"

A link in the Potters's House site says: "the Potters House Christian Fellowship which comprises of about 1400 churches in over 100 countries"

So while some are insignificant, others are rather quite warrented to have a place in the pentecostalism article. All it takes is a bit of research.

Perhaps the wording should be changed to only incorporate churches with a certain amount of affiliate churches, or a membership of 10,000 or more. I think the problem is, you have a church affiliation in Greece with 20,000 people, this is rather large and noteworthy, but with an article that is emphasising on mega churches and affiliations that number into the 50 million plus, other noteworthy movements in certain areas are not mentioned. The stats on this article show Greece as having "0.03 million" Pentecostals which is 30,000. So a church that has two thirds of the Pentecostals in Greece affiliated with them is indeed rather noteworthy, but seems small against 50 million. Unless the article becomes split up into Global Pentecostal statisics in different regions and countries like many articles on the Baptists or Anglicans do, then there should be a place for these groups in this article. Some of the others indeed do need deletion.

Just a note: Christian City Churches which is in the "less than 1 million bag" says:

"As of 2003 there over 100 churches situated throughout Australia, New Zealand, North America, Africa, Asia and the European community"

Chritian Outreach Centre says: "Christian Outreach Centre numbers over 1000 congregations in over 30 countries worldwide including the UK."

Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada says: "The organization includes over 1,200 member congregations throughout Canada, including every province and territory"

So some of these churches, while still significant, are not as significant as those in the other basket which was deleted by you. Also another thing needs to be noted. If the AOG which is at the top of the list claims over 50 million, but has been around for about 90 years. Some Other groups may have been around for much less but have had significant growth in that time, so much so that if continued they would be close to the 50 million number, and thus are rather influential.

Also the AOG page now claims 56.9 million and so the information on that is redundant and should be changed.

One of the problems with statistics in relation to denominations is the relative inaccuracy. For example AOG may be claimed as being both Pentacostal and Charismatic. Most people would accept that it is the supported doctrines that define best what denomination they belong to. I know John Bevere on his website says he is non-denominational but his doctrines would suggest charismatic not non-denominational. Anyhow just a thought.Darrenss 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I couldn't help but notice some pretty odd or small groups listed there. Does the article really warrant an invitation for EVERY pentacostal church group to get their name on the board?? Why not limit it to the top 10 or over 1 million it might save some future debates (ie - why is this church on there and not mine.).Darrenss 02:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a list of the ten largest global denominations with a sublist by country with the top five national denominations would be a workable solution. Nshimbi 0o:01, 04 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey that sounds like a good direction to go. Wouldn't it be good to do a percentage breakup comparing the major denominations but I think that would be too hard to do (finding sources that agree would be difficult I think). On the Christianity page denominational groups have been mentioned but not necessarily compared to one another. So just so I understand, the "sublist" would contain the denominations already named or different?

Most of the church statistics in this article are NOT properly verified or sourced even on their respective articles. Anybody could make these numbers up. Church of God - 100 million. I clicked on most of the church links to the articles and found the membership number on those articles to be unsourced. People are adding statistics eg "Church of Zion - 4 million" without any proper verification. This is going to get out of hand. These statistics need to be verified if not on this article but especially on their own articles. Otherwise the section needs to be regrouped into verified denominational statistics and a "could be but not sure" section.Darrenss 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. The problem is many of these stats are not verified in anyway as the term 'membership' is variable from denomination to denomination. Maybe a criteria that only denominations with externally verifiable statistics should be listed would help. I get particularly concerned with entries such as 'Independent - 50 million' independent from whom? Who is in this category and who is not? Also, the term 'less than 1 million' what does that really mean 999,999 people, just 1 person or anything in between. To be honest I think this is just a list open to self publicity and abuse and should be removed or an objective criteria applied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshimbi (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is pentacostalism is supposed to fit into a larger statistic along with the other denominations presenting christianity. On the christianity article 33% of the world's population is christian. According to a world survey it is broken up something like this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html#People Religions: Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%), Muslims 20.12%, Hindus 13.34%, Buddhists 5.89%, Sikhs 0.39%, Jews 0.23%, other religions 12.61%, non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36% *2004 est.

So church/denominational numbers overall MUST in the end fit into the larger figure. So far even saying 150 million pentacostals does not seem to me to be the correct figure either, let alone these improvised inflated church numbers.Darrenss 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I suugest the all the current unreferenced denominational statistics are removed and if contibutors want to reinstate them they should provide a valid link to demonstate the source of their information. Nshimbi 08:55, September 18 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what ought to be done. Recent changes some of the statistics reveals just how fallable the whole thing is. I noticed the Zion church was changed before from 2.5 million to 4 million <??> church of prophecy came in at over 1 million <??>, I mean if there is going to be any accuracy or reliablity here it needs to be sourced from now on. Add "facts" tag first and after 2 weeks those statistics are going to be alot shorter especially because I don't think there are verifiable sources on some of those but if there are now is a good time to quote them.Darrenss 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

World - ****(TOP 10)**

Countries (top 5 all up <?> or top 5 from selections from EACH of these?) - USA, Canada, Mexico, South America, Africa, UK, Europe, Russia, Asia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand?Darrenss 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason Darrenss is doing this is because he is trying to remove Potters house Christian Fellowship from the article. If you veiw his edits, that is his main aim, not improving wikipedia articles. Leave it as is. Sapienz 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If the Potter's House belongs there with other smaller groups than it will be there. The problem is EVERYONE can put there little group on and we could have a massive list and edit wars and that is not the intent of the article. Buit if we work on a better solution it might avoid these possible poblems that might arise. That is not TARGETING any individual groups any more than others. Besides it wasn't my idea anyway so why do I get the accusation??Darrenss 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey! does anyone know how many members there are in the Elim Pentecostal Church (UK) worldwide? I mean, how do we find these figures? I only know how many members they have in the UK, but not worlwide... They have more then 9000 churches all over the world, so I would presume they have quite a large membership as well? does anyone know? unsigned or signature overwritten?

Either we accept the denominations own statistics or use and single independent source for all of them. Alternativeley why not use the 'List of penetcostal denominations / churches' page to hold the statistics that everyone can be added to and avoid distracting the article here? Obviously the denominations own article page would also hold that info rgds, ||:) johnmark† 13:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the un-referenced denomination statistics. Whilst I think it would be hard to find an all encompassing list to verify churches around the world, I believe the onus should be on contributors to this list that they at least reference their sources for the figures in the article, even if that is just from statistics produced within the denomination. In the same way unreferenced entries need to be removed with a polite request to reference them before they are reinstated. I think that is a fair solution to the problem of self promotion in this section. Nshimbi 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whether from the denomination or from an "outside source" the fact of the matter is that the statistics are almost always just replicated from some denominational count. Whether we really like it or not the Catholic Church numbers are their numbers. I don't have the ability to count their members for them and frankly neither does anyone else. There may be many substanciating circumstances like if the 'First Environmental Church of Al Gore' claims to have 6 billion members that would be quite unsubstanciated. However, if these denominations have church buildings (or their member churches have buildings), colleges, offices, branch offices, etc., then these speak to some verification.

The statistics from 'outside sources' are often estimates. It seems that quoting the denominational numbers and then footnoting that the reference comes from the denominations statistical office or membership accounts would suffice. It seems somewhat like a mountain is being made out of a mole hill. BTW - What is wrong with the Potters House group that is being discussed? I know of them but I know of no reason why they should not be referenced or included. They are historically relevant for a encyclopedic reference. That is the view from my porch.

Nshimbi (nothing personal here, Mate) I don't think you are either Pro AG or Anti ICOF, just unhappy with the statictical verification in general. I do know that I have seen some of your work and it is a credit to Wikipedians! I have no axe to grind for or against either. I can't say that I personally know anyone from either group, but I know that they both exist and I it would seem that the AG is quite larger. 5 times, 10 times larger? Who knows.

One is quite older than the other. Historically, religious groups have worked against newer groups in some sort of self interests or self preservation method. We should be cautious to make Wikipedia rise above these petty squabbles. I worked to find some outside sources for these numbers (and am still looking for even better sources), but I admit that many of these sources are educated guesses derived prmarily from the groups published information.

Removing the refernces which is a total of 2 lines on this page seems quite extreme. However, I think in general that Nshimbi is interested in encyclopedic integrity and that it not be unfairly influenced or guided by any one source or group(s). I join him in that effort. However, we must recognize that some groups have done a better job or may be more visable of getting their numbers published. I don't think that should change how we Wikipedians looks at the data. The point that Darrens makes about some counting in more than one group is valid. When you look at groups like the National Association of Evangelicals, their count reflects groups that may be included in other stats. That is the view from my porch. (Seenitall 12:56 EST November 2007) (UTC)

Summary/Highlights

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)

I agree, the first time I read it I got lost with all the extra info that doesn't really do justice to explain pentacostalism to the point, its more or less over the place here there and everywhere. And the amount of unreferenced stuff is amazing, the reader has to take alot in at face value. Doing something about it is the tricky thing though, thats why its been like that for a while now. Does anyone esle think this is a major chunky page and it could lose some paragraph's here and there or is it fine and don't make too many changes?? Darrenss 12:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

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!

Criticism on the Criticism

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)

I agree. Criticism is criticism, it may not be correct or it might be someone's point of view so it should still be written from a NPOV. Use of some words in this case would suggest otherwise.Darrenss 20:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics

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)

Criticism

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)

AOG stats

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)

• Please see my comments above. The numbers for the AOG or any group represent some count (or they should). Perhaps we could find some common criteria. My grandfather was a Southern Baptist. He went to church at a SBC church for the last time in about 1930. However, because SBC counts 'baptised members' and he was baptised in their denomination he remained in their count till he died (may still be there! just kidding). The point it that we know how the SBC does their count. With a group like the AOG which has divisions in many countries I would suspect they count based on reported Sunday attendance or something. That is the view from my porch (seenitall. 1:10 est. November 16, 2007.

Last revision

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)

Darrenss, your eyes are not fooling you. While the majority of Pentecostals believe in salvation by faith alone, a minority of Pentecostals, known as "Oneness," "United," or "Jesus' name" Pentecostals, believe that certain works - such as water baptism in the name of Jesus and baptism in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues - are necessary for salvation.

The International Circle of Faith - A request

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)

Your point is excellent. I would also encourage members of International Circle of Faith to fine more widely published sources. I am assuming, of course, that they are members. I have no knowledge that they are or not. So, please understand I am not making an alegation. I have found no official statement from their offices. However, to the wider point. A reference from the person or group would not meet the criteria of verifiable. Some of the current references for all these are from the groups themselves. For example,the Assemblies of God. The 2004 statistical report was prepared by the A/G’s statistician, Sherri Doty, available from the A/G’s website at http://ag.org/top/about/Statistical_Report_2004.pdf. I have helped the article by adding an outside reference for the International Circle of Faith, and I am looking for one for the AG. More verifiable references are needed for this entire page. (Seenitall 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

Comment - I signed my addition here but for some reason this is showing that I did not sign. Thanks. (Seenitall 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seenitall (talk • contribs)

Statistic verification on wikipedia for churches and christian groups is hopeless. Its so bad, I think many groups are exaggerating their numbers anyway. I mean someone puts a new church statistic on this article and the first figure they come up with is 1 million?? They must be joking!! You can't trust wikipedia for reliable facts such as statistics for membership numbers. As much as you try and put a facts tag on church numbers no one really takes it seriously and looks for a reliable source. Come back again in a month and the tag you put up is deleted. I just get tired of it.Darrenss (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful of how you use the word Pentecostal here

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)

I'm not sure what you are objecting to here. Nothing written above would be objectionable to Trinitarian Pentecostals. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a Trinitarian Pentecostal (A/G), and trust me, it is objectionable to me and my denomination to say that "Pentecostals believe it is essential to...be baptized in the name of Jesus...in order to obtain salvation." If you're counting the Assemblies as Pentecostals, that's just a patently false statement - the Assemblies don't baptize in the name of Jesus at all, much less consider it essential. This statement is poorly worded. Perhaps it's a parallel structure error? I don't know, all I know is that as it stands, it is false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Missed that. Yes, baptism is not essential but two out of three are right on the money. You can always fix this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I can fix it, and I intend to. It's just that before I did, I wanted to give a justification for why I was doing it so that it wouldn't just be reverted. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghost/Spirit

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)

I agree. Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are equally valid terms for the same person of the Trinity - or mode/role of God if you're Oneness I guess - but the terminology should be consistently applied. Personally, I prefer the term Holy Spirit, simply because the word Ghost has acquired in modern times connotations which it did not have in 1611 when the KJV of the Bible was translated...but I'd be curious to see what others thought before I changed it myself. Personally, I don't mind either way, but I do think to avoid confusion, the article should be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.242.232 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC) '

Evangelicalism

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.