Talk:Fivefold ministry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Charismatic (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.


I'm not sure what happened to the old talk page that brought this up, but this article does not comply with wikipedia standards for WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:Cite. Please address these concerns before removing tags on the article. Pastordavid 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: Please be specific about your claim and I will. An explanation of the theological theory behind the concept of the five-fold ministry requires an explanation, not simply a claim there is no such thing.

At your request, I have tagged statements in the article with the {fact} tag that either need citations, or which appear to be decidedly NPOV. Thoughout out you seem to set up theses, and then argue with them ... not standard procedure for a wikipedia article. Also, please sign your discussion comments. Pastordavid 07:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


This article is hard to read and doesn't make sense. It also has an USA-centric bias (i.e. referring to "our" American Presidents) --Jmbranum 08:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jmbranum. This article is bias, hard to read, and make the theology of the Fivefold ministry as confusing as I always perceived it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fachex (talkcontribs) 23:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article needs to be rewritten from scratch. Start with a description of fivefold ministry, the five roles, etc., and then go on to the historical claims about the disappearance of these roles: when they were functioning, and when they were not functioning. Chonak (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Most of this article is occupied with arguments for and against the cessation of charismata. That information -- to the extent that any of that can be documented -- really doesn't belong here. It would fit under the topic Cessationism. It is even possible that this whole topic of "Fivefold ministry" should become a section within Spiritual gift. Chonak (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The section on what the Fivefold ministry is should become a subset of Spiritual gift and the rest can either be added to Cessationism or binned.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. While much of what this article 'says' would better fit in a discussion of cessationism, the topic itself merits a separate article. Chonak's suggestion above is the best: rewrite an article actually about the fivefold ministry (what the view is, where it comes from, what the function of the ministries described are, etc.). The article is poorly written, but the topic deserves its own treatment.SolaDeoGloria (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given this page a serious overhaul; I still have to work on the second half of the entry, but I believe it's coming to involve some actually-useful information.Mathninja (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC) This article and much discussion here appears to present this issue from a thoroughly cessationist point of view, which interferes with clarity on five-fold ministry. By choosing a subset of those who believe in FFM it gives the false impression that it is limited to particular, narrow, strands of the charismatic movement. BTW Alan Hirsch's acronym is APEPT - not APEST - read him and actually read Eph 4:11-12 to see why A. P. E. P. T. (No S). A silly error in a biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Ecclesiological debate[edit]

As it stands now, this section is completely unsourced and appears to be little more than a poorly written personal essay and includes blatant POV rants. Regardless of the fate of the rest of the article, this section should either be deleted or rewritten from the ground up. Doc Tropics 20:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 aspects I'd like to comment on. (1) Apostles had to have had a personal post resurrection interview with Christ. (2) With regard to prophets: No more need for direct revelations from prophets.

1. Every person out there can have a personal relationship with Christ - literally. There are thousands of people who hears God's voice. Yes, an actual voice. So apostles are still in action and being anointed by God Himself.

2. Firstly the problem written here is that a Prophet and the gift of prophecy are 2 different things. A prophet is sent by God to stir up the status quo - to point out the wrongs churches are teaching and setting it right. They are still the voice of God (to those who don't hear Him personally) and do get the gift of prophecy along with many other attributes, however, anyone if the Holy Spirit chooses so, can have the gift of prophesy. There is still a big need for this not only to set churches back on the path, but also to direct people and then lastly to direct nations with regard to the coming of the King (Jesus Christ). So don't think that the 5 fold ministry is any less active today than in those days or that it is less important.

I hope that clears this up a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that many people hear voices, there are medications that can help with that. Since no one has provided references in over a year I removed the section. Several other sections have similar issues and need to be referenced or removed. Doc Tropics 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Quran is not a source to be used regarding matters of internal Christian doctrine[edit]

While I agree that the need for an article about this important and often misunderstood section of Christian history is necessary, there needs to be some theological / historical review of this. 1st, the “Quran” is being cited in a “Christian” article? The Quran though essential to the Islamic faith is of no authority on matters of Christian doctrine or internal Christian debate. 2nd, the “Five Fold Ministry” should have an article, connected to a general article regarding the history of “Pentecostalism” in the United States.

I am in the middle of writing a thesis right now for my post grad theological studies, I will get back to this. .--DJ Black Adam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Since Islam and Christianity are so closely related (both descended from Judaism) it is not uncommon for the religious writings of these groups to be compared and contrasted. That is exactly what section 3.6 does; it compares statements from the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur'an which can all be interpreted to support the same belief. Regarding your second point, the article is included in Category: Pentecostalism (see footer) but there should certainly be a direct link in the body of the text, probably right in the intro.
The biggest issue with this article seems to be the near total lack of sources or references. I'd strongly support a thorough rewrite built around reliable sources. Good luck with your thesis, Doc Tropics 15:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Doc, I do understand that Judaism, Islam and Christianity are the Abrahamic faiths, coming from the faith of the Hebrews, however; Christianity is built upon an interpretation of positing that Jesus is the Messianic figure foretold of in the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im and Ketivum); since the Tanakh is quoted throughout the New Testament, and since the Tanakh is accepted as authotitative by the orthodoxy of the Christian faith, it is relevent. The Qu'ran however, is of no authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The debate about apostles / prophets and spiritual gifts enduring past the time of Paul, is a matter for internal debate. I can understand perhaps if we include how Islam and Judaism respectively look at the issue, whereas Judaism states no prophets since Malachi, Islam states no prophets since Muhammed and to both the New Testament is not reliable in matters of doctrine.

I will of course use proper citations in regard to my rewrite, and look forward to what you all add (or what I add if you all beat me to it). DJ Black Adam (talk) 3:05 CST, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Foundations[edit]

This article needs a lot more work. I've finally been able to give some attention to it, but much of the material simply needs to go. The "Biblical Foundations" section is completely unsourced. Yes, it quotes Bible passages, but these are also passages that opponents of Fivefold ministry also believe, so by themselves they cannot be used to argue the case. Really, we need citations from reliable FFM sources. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


I am deleting this section. It currently claims to present arguments against FFM, but the statements seem to be in favour. In any case, it is completely unreferenced, and largely irrelevant. StAnselm (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Neglects fact of controversy and misrepresents view of Grudem[edit]

By describing the five-fold ministry as an evangelical doctrine, this article wrongly implies that the doctrine is widely accepted by evangelical Christians, which is not the case. Moreover, non-evangelical groups such as the UPC (which arguably introduced the teaching to the evangelical church before being cast out as heretical by evangelical denominations such as the Assemblies of God, in the late 1940s) affirm the doctrine. As such, its relationship to evangelicalism seems tenuous.

The article could be taken to imply that John Wimber affirmed the doctrine which, as a 25-year member of his church, I can assure he did not.

More glaringly, and more easily documented, the article cites Grudem as affirming the five-fold ministry, which he does not. For instance, he writes: "I hold that “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is a phrase best applied to conversion, and subsequent experiences are better called “being filled with the Holy Spirit” (chapter 39); moreover, that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the New Testament are still valid for today, but that “apostle” is an office, not a gift, and that office DOES NOT CONTINUE TODAY [emphasis added] (chapters 52, 53)."

Grudem, Wayne (2009-05-11). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Kindle Locations 319-322). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

As mentioned by another user, the article does not properly distinguish the concepts of gift and office. This may be the root of the misrepresentation of Grudem. If doubt concerning Grudem's position remains, I will be happy to supply additional quotes from his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The mentions of Wimber and Grudem were unsourced, so I am removing them. StAnselm (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

What does it actually mean?[edit]

Lots of words, but little apparent meaning.

The article appears to be setting out to describe a five-fold structure ("apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers") in a present-day context. But nowhere does it seems to describe the roles ("an apostle does this; a prophet does that; ...."). Nowhere do I see the "distinctives" of such roles for the modern-day reader.

From my schooldays, I think I know what a "teacher" does in explaining things. From seeing people like Billy Graham, some American tele-evangelists, etc., I think I know that they are trying to convert people. And from my knowledge of the English langauge, I presume that a church pastor is somehow caring for people. But a prophet? (Well, yes, I've seen some Christian folk predict the end of the world... several times. Is that you mean by a "prophet"?) And what, pray, is one of these "Apostles"? (It's a meaningless, empty jargon word, unless it is described to the reader.) What is his/her role?

The whole point of the article is describe that, isn't it? And yet that description is the one thing that is missing, isn't it?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Original research/almost no secondary source references[edit]

According to Wikipedia:No original research, this article is almost entirely original research. The majority of the references are Bible verses, i.e. primary source material, from which conclusions are being drawn, i.e. original research.

I have added tags to highlight the problem material. Taxee (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)