Talk:Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths

Follows a verbatin description
Am I right in thinking tha\t this whole page is just the "Statement of fundamental truths" document ? Because if it is we don't have that sort of thing here. See what Wikipedia is not for more details. Also there are copyright issues. Theresa knott 14:21, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, you are right. You may delete it. [Unsigned comment by User:Nbarr 14:24, 7 November 2003]


 * Well i could just delete by why don't you rewrite the page? There is nothing to stop you from writing about the statement. You could summarise the main points in your own words. That way there would be no copyvio and no breaking of wikipedia guildlines yet the information would still be there. Theresa knott 14:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the help.[Unsigned comment by User:Nbarr 14:44, 7 November 2003]

Cleaned up
I cleaned up the page a bit. The previous article was barly a summery of the AoF Fundamental Truths. Also, it was not very informative in how the Fundamental Truths are different than those of other Christian Denominations. At anyrate, I cleaned it up the best I could, trying to point out where the AoG differs from Protestant denominations. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can elaberate more and explain what the consequences of some of the theology is, both good and bad. --Allranger 02-03-2005 [Unsigned comment by User:66.232.94.44 02:54, 4 February 2005]

a more modern view?
One of my first edits on Wikipedia, tell me if I'm doing something I shouldn't be :) I just noticed the following sentence in this article: "Statements 7 and 8 diverge from traditional Christianity by taking a more modern and Pentecostal view of the work of the Holy Spirit." It seems to me that saying it's a more modern view shows bias towards the view there (ie other views are outdated). I've deleted those words for now, but I'm wondering if this sentence should be reworded? [Unsigned comment by User:Jasonb 18:44, 16 September 2005]

Reorganized article
I've reorganized the article. See the changes I've made here. I intend to add a section specifically addressing "sanctification" as that is the most ambiguous truth mentioned. It is also the one that has undergone the most change over the years. Ltwin (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added the section on sanctification and have also wrote about the other two controversies—Oneness and initial evidence—which necessitated a doctrinal statement. That is the extent of my knowledge on the history of the statement. I do plan on creating a section mentioning the editorial changes that have been made since 1916, such as the fact that there were originally 17 truths. But for now I think I will wait. Ltwin (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)