Talk:Holiness movement

The article needs to discuss more information

I'd like to see this article discuss the history and scope of the movement, whether it's limited to certain denominations, etc. etc. For instance, I think it began in the 19th century, and arguably continues to this day, although it's a bit smaller now than it used to be. But this is very vague; I hope someone can be more specific about this. Wesley 17:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A most outstanding book on the subject is A.M. Hills' Holiness and Power from the 1800s i believe. He explains his view clearly , covers scripture thoroughly and gives the testimony of many famous christians of their day. it is simply wonderfull. I personally have over 300 Christian books, I greatly regret I have not come accross this sooner. to quote from the introduction

"Readers will notice that the author has profusely quoted the written testimony and opinion of many others who have received the Spirit in sanctifying power. That fact gives to this book a great advantage. Had the author made a cheap attempt at originality, this volume would have been no more than one obscure man’s private opinion or theory. But citing, as he has, the testimony of a hundred souls, who have been “filled” with the sanctifying Spirit, the combined verdict of these “living epistles” of God, written in human hearts, makes this volume, like the “Acts of the Apostles,” a record of the work of the Holy Ghost in human hearts. "

you can get it here as a free adobe accrobat file (pdf) http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyctr/books/indices/index-h-authors.htm [Unsigned comment by User:211.30.71.162]

Christian perfection and "entire sanctification"

This article equates the Wesleyan/Methodist doctrine of Christian Perfection with Lankford's experience of "entire sanctification"... Is this entirely accurate? Though I'm not, at this point, competent to discuss the differences, I've always understood there to be distinctions between the concepts... Any comments? --Chiacomo (talk) 02:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are variations between the Methodist understanding of perfection and the Holiness understanding of entire sanctification, although Wesley seems to have used those terms interchangabley. I felt that they were similar enough to place on one page, where a good discussion could exist, rather than have two smaller pages. Christian perfection got the nod only because it seems more prominent in the literature, particularly in Wesley. The concepts are pretty darn close, though not 100% identical. KHM03 13:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me, preacher. What conference are you in? --Chiacomo (talk) 14:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western PA Conference of the UMC. KHM03 15:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

There are SERIOUS neutrality issues with this article. It's not written as an informational piece, but occasionally exhorts as a sermon. Examples include:

"We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins, even ours." This issue isn't as strong, because the previous line sets it up as something within the holiness movement.

"A christian who thinks that salvation without sanctification is morbidly decieved." Well, one, this isn't even a sentence. Two, it's not making a statement of what the movement believes but is written as a statement of fact.

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who works in us to will and to act according to his good purpose." Hey look, the article now tells you how to address your faith and your life! It's moved from educational to instructional, and has thrown out neutrality entirely.

There are other examples. Unfortunately, I do not know the Holiness Movement well enough to go over this article carefully, but I shall research and return. Until then--seriously, guys, this is an encyclopedia. An informational resource. Go preach on your own time, and while we're at it, let's include some controverseys of the Holiness Movement in the article, because I've no doubt there are some. You know, for balance.

Grenye

Thanks for pointing out those problems. I have removed those sentences. It is self-evident, in my opinion, that those statements did not belong in the article (at least not in the way that they were written). Logophile (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This phraseology is common within the holiness movement and, with simplification of the more dramatically-worded text, could easily be described as a tenet of same; which is encyclopedic don't you think? For example, the phrase "We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins." is a basic tenet of the holiness movement. With all due respect, as such, merely deleting said text out of hand only exposes the POV and/or lack of knowledge on the topic by the parties complaining and/or deleting. Similar to someone not understanding the basic workings of nuclear physics and deleting part of that article because it doesn't make sense to them or they disagree. Just because religion presents as more subjective than math (ie, clearly subjective) doesn't mean we should be treating the article any differently. JimScott (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that people don't want this information in the article. The issue is that the information as it was written was stating as fact instead of stating as "the holiness movement believes, teaches, etc." Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia is jeapordized and compromised when it comes across as supporting a view (religious or otherwise). Now you say that instead of deleting the passages they should have been reedited. That is a valid point; however, it is the responsibility of the editor who put that text in the article to conform them to Wikipedia's neutrality rules. It is not the responsiblity of any other editor who has an obligation to remove text which is pov and unverified. Ltwin (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wesleyan-Holiness Movement

Should Wesleyan-Holiness Movement redirect here? Ltwin (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Charismatic?

I'm not sure the W-H is Charismatic, I'm removing the sub-project tag.Moonraker0022 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are many Pentecostal churches which were first and continue to be Holiness, such as the International Pentecostal Holiness Church. Ltwin (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Having been a Wesleyan for more than 50 years, I'm fairly sure mainstream Wesleyan's do not consider themselves charismatic. I cannot speak to other churches that use John Wesley's name but are not part of The Wesleyan Church. JimScott (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JimScott. I am sure that many holiness churches would ardently deny any connection with the charismatic and Pentecostal movements; however, many of the classical Pentecostal denominations have their roots in and still consider themselves part of the holiness movement. The only difference is that Pentecostal's believe that tongues are the evidence of the "second blessing". The banner does not imply that the entire movement is charismatic, only that the subject areas overlap.Ltwin (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Cleanup in accordance with WOP: Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents Names of organized religions (as well as officially recognized sects), whether as a noun or an adjective, and their adherents start with a capital letter. Unofficial movements and ideologies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. For example, Islam, Pentecostalism, and Catholic are capitalized, while evangelicalism and fundamentalist are not. (holiness movement is not a proper name) R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Laos, India and Vietnam

Churches of these countries have been removed. They are Holiness Churches according to World Christian Enyclopedia. Sarcelles (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have they been removed again?

Sarcelles (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Pentecostal Purge

What is going on? It seems that someone is on a campaign to remove anything that even hints of Pentecostalism from this page. I realize their are differences between Pentcostalism and the holiness movement. However, removing a source because it just so happens to be about the Pentecostal Holiness tradition and as if within its pages there could not be a reference to a belief of purely holiness Christianity is rediculous. Just because the subject is on the Pentecostal branch of the holiness movement does not mean it can't include insights into the wider movement. Please people think about your edits before you make them. Ltwin (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I kindly suggest that you study the difference between the traditional holiness movement and the Pentecostal movement. I am correcting additions that should ave not been includied in the article. While some in the Pentecostal movement might have originally come out of the Wesleyan holiness movement, now they are entirely separate movements. The groups in this article do not believe in speaking in tongues-the phrase "speaking in togues is of the devil" is one position. Tongues is merely babbling and not a real language is another. Traditional holiness groups do not permit speaking in tongues in their services. I am sure that your interest is in the Pentecostal movement. Please keep the 2 movements separate, and stop trying to merge them. รัก-ไทย 05:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not trying to merge anything. Wikipedia does not choose sides in religious conflicts. Just because groups in the holiness movement who did not accept the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues consider Pentecostals as non-holiness does not change the fact that many Pentecostal groups continue to claim that they are holiness. Wikipedia does not determine who is what. It only reports the facts. What are the facts:

• Traditional holiness groups do not accept Pentecostals
• Some Pentecostal groups still claim to be part of the holiness movement

Wikipedia does not choose sides. The article previously was fine. It noted that traditional holiness Christians do not accept Pentecostals while also noting that there are Pentecostal groups who define themselves as holiness. I do not see the problem. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.

And once again that source is not only about Pentecostalism. It is a scholarly work which looks into the history of Pentecostalism which has to talk about the holiness movement. The source is citing a holiness belief, not a Pentecostal belief as such it is a legitimate source to verify what is written in the article. Just because the word Pentecostal is in the title does not mean that the whole book is talking about Pentecostalism. It can also mention the holiness movement, which is what is being referenced here. Surely you can see that? Ltwin (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Holiness "Movement"

Some holiness churches and believers object to being referred to as a "movement", with the connotation of being radical and ephemeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.22 (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok so any suggestions as to what we should call it???? I guess not. Ltwin (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Tend to oppose" whom?

The text stupidly claims:

Holiness groups tend to oppose antinomianism

Where are those antinomians? Are there Christian denominations, that adher to a antinomian position? (No) One could as well say:

Holiness groups hate evil

which is not informative, since Holiness groups are part of a religion, and as such religions fight evil. A similar textual stupidity would be:

The Middle-left Presbylutherian Calvinists rever Jesus as Son of God

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)