User talk:Lightbearer7

I REALLY REALLY NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT
See here for details: Requests for Comment/user 220.233.86.223 --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion
I welcome your feedback.

Hello there
I'm also an avid Christian wikipedia contributor - you have edited quite a number of my articles on the Brownsville revivial and others. Thanks for your input in these.

Since you are from a Vineyard background, it would really be helpful if you could contribute to Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief. This article is mainly my input and I had to fight against it being deleted when I first created it. Anyway, it is a list of criticisms that people have of the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. Naturally I am biased against the movement, which is why I have been able to contribute so much. As a result, the article is skewed too much towards the negative and there is very little decent counter-arguments that exist in the article. I have tried to anticipate some of these counter-arguments but, since I am not in the movement, they are obviously not good enough. What do you think brother? One Salient Oversight 04:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's good to hear from you! I just checked out your "Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief", and I must say that it is well written.  I am glad that it was not deleted, for although I may disagree on some points, a responsible level of dialogue on the issues you raise is greatly needed.  When I can find the time to do so, I look forward to offering some input on that page.  By the way, although I have been blessed by my friendship with many in the Neocharismatic movement (of which the Vineyard is a part) and I have even taught in one of their training centers, I am more aligned with the Pentecostal movement.  I will modify my user page to clarify my identity a bit.  I look forward to further dialogue.  -- Lightbearer7, 8 Nov 2004

Hello again! I've been checking out all the work you've been doing on Criticisms of Charismatic and Pentecostal belief and I think it's been improved greatly because of your work. Keep it up! One Salient Oversight 07:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * See my answers to your points at User talk:One Salient Oversight.

Renewal Theologians
Thanks for your work on this subject. However I think it might be prudent to remove the category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Topics from the individual theologians simply because I don't think they're well known enough - they are certainly noteworthy but not noteworthy enough to be in that category. The reason why I do not apply this to Gordon Fee or Wayne Grudem is because these two are very well known both inside and outside the renewal movement. What do you think? One Salient Oversight 03:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I respectively disagree regarding all but three of the names on the Renewal Theologians page. Let's take these one by one:


 * Stanley M. Horton's work has become almost the standard for the Pentecostal understanding of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit throughout the Pentecostal movement. Seminaries and Bible Colleges around the world have used his materials for at least twenty-five years.  If major players in the shaping of Pentecostal theology are to be listed, I believe that Horton should certainly be near the top of the list.
 * Cheryl Bridges Johns has been one of the few Pentecostal scholars to have clearly articulated the theology of the stream of Pentecostalism representing the Wesleyan tradition. Her work on spiritual formation and inductive Bible study from the Pentecostal perspective has been groundbreaking.  However, I would agree that she is not as widely known as some of the others on this list.  For that reason I reluctantly agree to remove the category tag.
 * Rufus Hollis Gause is almost an icon as a theologian in the Classical Pentecostal movement. It is my understanding that when Burgess inadvertently omitted Gause from his first edition of the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, he was quick to acknowledge his error and apologize for the oversight.  Of course, Dr. Gause is in the current edition.  Gause has been a major influence on the shaping of Pentecostal theology -- especially in the Church of God (Cleveland).  He was also influential in the shaping of C. Peter Wagner's and John Wimber's understanding of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit early in the formative years of the Neocharismatic movement.
 * Steven Jack Land's work entitled Pentecostal Spirituality (Sheffield Academic Press) has established him as a major voice. Land is one of few to adequately articulate the theology of the Wesleyan stream of Pentecostalism.  I do believe it would be a mistake to downplay Dr. Land's current role in mainstream Pentecostalism.
 * Rickie D. Moore is a significant voice in the Pentecostal movement. However, due to the fact that he may not be as well known as some of the others, I will agree to remove the category tag.
 * John Christopher Thomas has published a good deal of convincing theological work regarding some of the Pentecostal distinctives. For an example of his scholarship, I would encourage you to read Thomas' work entitled, The Devil, Disease and Deliverance:  Origins of Illness in New Testament Thought (Sheffield Academic Press).
 * French L. Arrington? Google search his name, and you will see why he should remain as a noteworthy theologian within the movement.
 * Harold D. Hunter has contributed much, but yes, you are probably right.
 * Jack Deere, a former professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, has been a major voice in the shaping of neocharismatic theology. He has had a profound influence upon former cessationists who have crossed over into the neocharismatic movement.
 * Guy Chevreau's role with the neocharismatic revival that began in 1994 has made him a major voice in the shaping of theology for that stream of the Renewal.


 * I hope that these notes help to convey my rationale. To apply your stated criterion of noteworthiness, the same could be said of Wayne Grudem.  I don't think that he is as well known outside of his own movement as you are suggesting.  Do bear in mind that I am a North American.  Names that we might regard as familiar here may not be so common in Australia, and visa versa.  --Lightbearer7 05:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine. I have to rely on your call at this point since I am not Charismatic - the only reason I include Fee and Grudem is because they "crossover" with non-Renewal theologians like Don Carson. I hadn't heard of most of these people - so I'll have to trust you with this. You make any changes you think are necessary. One Salient Oversight 03:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Word of wisdom
The article you initiated on Word of wisdom has had a paragraph added relating to the Mormon/LDS use of the term. An article on that specific topic is found on Word of Wisdom. Would you prefer 1) adding a disambig. notice at the top of the Word of wisdom page, 2) keeping the existing paragraph or 3) adding a see "Word of Wisdom" for LDS usage" on the bottom of the article? Be happy to help.  Peace.  WBardwin 7 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Lightbearer7! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Rufus Hollis Gause -
 * 2) Jackie David Johns -

Proposed deletion of French L. Arrington


The article French L. Arrington has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Apparently not notable, quoted in one article that appears in Google news archives three times.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Guy Chevreau for deletion
The article Guy Chevreau is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Guy Chevreau until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Lear's Fool 07:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Interpretation of tongues for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Interpretation of tongues is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Interpretation of tongues until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Acousmana (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

== Nomination of Rufus Hollis Gause for deletion

Nomination of Rufus Hollis Gause for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rufus Hollis Gause is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rufus Hollis Gause until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)