User talk:Cpreston

Re: RFC on "Talk:Oneness_Pentecostal
Reasons for deleting the Chalfant blurb:

I read the official Wikipedia policy on verifiability here Verifiability. It states This Policy in a Nutshell:

"Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources . .... ." Further: '''1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources '''. '''2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. (which i have)''' '''3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. "'''

Regarding these reliable and reputable sources: "'Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy . For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources .'"

I challenged the reliability of Chalfant and the other Oneness Pentecostal writers as outlined in Wikipedia's Policy listed above. He is not a reliable source because:

A.Chalfant (and by extension most Oneness Pentecostals) wouldn't qualify as a neutral third-party source since he has a vested theological agenda. (see his comments in the second block quote below)

B.Chalfant (and many other OPs on this topic) has a terrible reputation regarding accuracy and credibility. He often makes outlandish claims and makes little to no effort to document them. To wit, here's just a few excerpts of what one Professor of Theology had to say about that "scholar's" book Ancient Champions of Oneness cited in the article :

"'Chalfant's work is permeated by radical assertions. Assertions which fly in the face of the unanimous opinion of historical scholarship and which should, therefore, be especially supported by detailed evidence, but concerning which no attempt is even made to place on a historically firm basis. Thus, to cite only a few examples, Chalfant supplies his readers with a list of bishops in Rome who were, supposedly modalistic monarchians, going all the way back to the apostolic age (Chalfant 53-54). No evidence however is given (I suspect because none exists) concerning the monarchianism of 12 of the first 13 listed. Again, Chalfant states that after the death of Polycarp, the great 'One God preacher', trinitarian assemblies began to rise up causing numerous 'church splits' in the oneness Churches (ibid 21). No shred of evidence is cited in support of this claim. To cite another example, Chalfant claims that John 1:1 is written 'in part' in refutation of 'Gnostic inspired trinitarianism' (ibid 22). No evidence is given in support of this highly eccentric position... ''"

and here:

"'Chalfant similarly confidently traces the movement of oneness parties in the centuries following the Council of Nicea through Hungary, Yugoslavia and the U.S.S.R. in the north, and through Persia, Armenia and Ethiopia in the south (Chalfant 80-81). Remarkably, but too characteristically, no evidence is cited. He does, however, give us some rationale on an earlier page for believing that 'a one God, tongue-talking, apostolic people' had never disappeared from the earth. 'For', Chalfant argues, 'had they been gone, dear reader, the church would have been gone, and the rapture would have occurred''(ibid, 65)."

and here:

"'...Chalfant's misrepresentation of secondary sources which I wish to call your attention to occurs when Chalfant quotes the eminent church historian J.D. Kelly as saying that 'Zephyrinus and Callistus were...conservatives holding fast to a monarchian tradition which antedated the whole movement of thought inaugurated by the Apologists'...We read read Chalfant conclude from this that 'Kelly recognized that Oneness was the doctrine taught by the apostles, and that trinitarianism arose later' (ibid 91). This is a severe misrepresentation. First in the quote from Kelly under consideration, it is not trinitarianism as such which the tradition of Zephyrinus and Callistus is said to antedate, but the highly sophisticated philosophical tradition of the Apologists. Secondly, anyone who has ever read the whole of Kelly's work from which this quote is taken knows that one of Kelly's concerns is to demonstrate that Nicene trinitarianism was a direct and natural working out of the 'triadic pattern' of the New Testament and early post-apostolic confession of faith.'"

Gregory A. Boyd, "The Oneness View of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: A Critical Appraisal" (Oneness Pentecostal Symposium, Harvard Divinity School - July 5,6,7, 1984)

C. Chalfant is described as a "scholar" but his works are not of any serious academic quality as shown above. His works are not academically peer-reviewed by relevant historian specialists.

D. Finally, I contend that the whole enterprise of looking for "Oneness believers" in the ancient modalists is extremely anachronistic, anti-historical, and un-scholarly. It's like calling Arminius "a Methodist" or the Montanists "Pentecostal". The Montanists displayed gifts of the spirit - does this mean that they held to the doctrines of Charles Parham - including tongues as the initial evidence for the second work of grace? Probably not. Methodism, Pentecostalism, Oneness are all modern terms for modern groups whose theologies were formed in a certain time period and a certain milieu. The ancients were facing a whole different set of circumstances. The term "Oneness" didn't come into use until around 1930 afterall. To call the Sabellians or others "Oneness believers" as Chalfant consistently does is very misleading and should have no place in the article. 4.156.171.164 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Cpreston

reply
Thanks for posting your thoughts. Please consider, however, your "underlined" points:

"'Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy . For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources .'"

1. Having a reputation for fact-checking does not mean the same fact-checker is not allowed to have his own opinion, and all is well so long as he does not pass off his opinion of what someone may have said or written as a quote of that person.

2. The Chalfant "blurb" as you called it, did not pose outlandish claims. It posed reasonable claims, and gave exact quotes ("strong sources") to support the reasonable claims.

3. You implied that Chalfant is not peer-reviewed, and then yourself quoted from what appeared to be a peer's review of his work. Umm, there seems to be a malformed logic there. (?)

4. The negative review did not anywhere imply that Chalfant's citation of sources cannot be trusted; it alleged that he doesn't cite sources (which is obviously not accurate).

5. This does not prove your case for justifying the deletion, and it brings that critical peer's credibility and integrity into question.

You wrote, "I challenged the reliability of Chalfant and the other Oneness Pentecostal writers as outlined in Wikipedia's Policy listed above. He is not a reliable source because...."

Then do question anyone posting Chalfant's OPINION that you consider unreliable. But don't behave in a way that implies that the man is some lewd, base liar that cannot be trusted when he indicates that 'In this resource document [x], this quote [x] is attributed to this historical character [x].' I have personally dialoged with the brother. He is a Holy Ghost-filled Christian of fine character. Accuse him of being wrong on his opinion, by all means. But don't accuse that he would deliberately lie about what the source said was a quote of a historical figure. You only make yourself look petty and argumentive by acting that way. I trust it is only an appearance, and not reality about you. :-) DougJoseph 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)