Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other  🔗 **Source:** [Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4#full-transcript) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [continuationism, cessationism, spiritual-gifts, theological-dialogue, pentecostal-history, charismatic-movement] > author: Josh Lewis, Michael Miller > source: The Remnant Radio (YouTube) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4 > date created: 2026-07-16 > > # 🏷️ Title: Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - Josh Lewis and Michael Miller (both self-described continuationists, hosts of The Remnant Radio) devote the episode to diagnosing why continuationists and cessationists routinely misrepresent one another, triggered by Josh's own recent misstatement of the cessationist position (in a video about Bethel Church) and a public comment-section clash with cessationist apologist Justin Peters. - They walk through several structural causes of cross-camp miscommunication: differing theological "streams" of origin (Wesleyan-Holiness/Arminian roots for continuationism vs. Reformed/Calvinist roots for cessationism), different vocabularies for the same underlying experience ("God told me" vs. "providence and wisdom"; "contending for gifts" vs. "ordinary means of grace"), mutual suspicion of motive traceable to the 1904 Azusa Street revival's class/education divide, and the habit of judging the opposing camp by its worst public examples (Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar) rather than its best scholars (Wayne Grudem, Craig Keener, D.A. Carson on the continuationist side; John Calvin, B.B. Warfield on the cessationist side). - Key stakeholders: charismatic/Pentecostal churches and their critics within conservative Reformed evangelicalism; named figures include Justin Peters, John MacArthur, Jack Deere, Sam Storms, Jeff Durbin, RC Sproul, Doug Wilson, and (in a closing tangent) Destiny Image publishing and its authors Troy Brewer, Larry Sparks, and Tina Pew. - Risk/tradeoff: the hosts explicitly hold a "both/and" mediating position (sacramental, liturgically ordered, yet expectant of the miraculous) and use that position to critique excesses on both sides — this makes the episode a useful diagnostic of cross-camp rhetoric, but it is produced by two self-identified continuationists, so cessationist positions are represented secondhand and occasionally straw-manned even while the hosts warn against straw-manning. - Bottom line: most of the talking-past-each-other the hosts identify is not really about whether the miraculous gifts are active today — it is about differing theological starting points, differing default vocabularies for the same experiences, and a tendency on both sides to treat the other's worst actors as representative and to assume bad motive rather than engage the best available arguments. ## 📖 Main Content The episode is framed around a real, on-air-referenced dispute: Josh had defined cessationism incorrectly in an earlier video (saying cessationists believe spiritual gifts have "ceased" outright, rather than the narrower claim that apostolic sign gifts specifically have ceased while gifts like teaching and leadership continue). Cessationist apologist Justin Peters called him out; Michael Miller then pushed back on Peters for denying he had ever "knowingly" misrepresented charismatics. That exchange becomes the episode's organizing case study for a bigger claim: both camps misrepresent each other constantly, mostly unintentionally, because they are operating from different theological grammars. The hosts propose several concrete mechanisms: 1. **Theological genealogy** — continuationism often descends from Wesleyan-Holiness/Arminian traditions emphasizing personal responsibility and free will; cessationism often descends from Reformed/Calvinist traditions emphasizing God's sovereignty. 2. **Vocabulary mismatch for the same phenomenon** — "God told me" (charismatic) versus "providence I can see in hindsight" (cessationist); "contending for more of the Spirit" versus "ordinary means of grace." 3. **Suspicion of motive**, traced back to the 1904 Azusa Street revival, where working-class, non-seminary-trained Pentecostals were dismissed by seminary-trained mainline clergy as "demonized" or "crazy," while Pentecostals in turn cast the educated critics as modern-day Pharisees. 4. **Judging by the worst rather than the best** — cessationists engage with Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, and Robert Henderson rather than continuationist scholars like Wayne Grudem, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington III, or John Mark Ruthven; continuationists likewise underengage cessationism's best exponents (Calvin, Warfield, Richard Gaffin) versus its popularizers. 5. A closing, unplanned tangent critiques Destiny Image (a charismatic publishing house) for publishing what the hosts call New Age-adjacent content ("Breaking the Time Code," foreword by Troy Brewer), which Josh argues hands cessationists legitimate ammunition. ### 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=12) Intro and topic framing - Josh Lewis (with co-host Michael Miller, Denver) opens with brief personal catch-up, then frames the show: correcting his own recent misdefinition of cessationism from a prior Bethel Church video. - Working definitions given: continuationists believe all supernatural spiritual gifts have continued; cessationists (correct definition, per Josh) believe some of the apostolic sign gifts have ceased. #### ⏱️ [00:01:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=100) The Justin Peters exchange and the "monolith" problem - Josh recounts misdefining cessationism, being corrected by Justin Peters in a comment section, and accepting the correction. - Miller pushes back on Peters' framing that cessationism isn't a monolith while also denying he has ever "knowingly" misrepresented charismatics — Miller calls this an echo-chamber signal. - Both hosts agree cessationism exists on a spectrum, citing R.C. Sproul's account of a providential phone call versus a "closed-off, no gifts ever" cessationist pole. #### ⏱️ [00:15:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=932) Theological streams: Wesleyan-Holiness vs. Reformed roots - Central thesis segment: continuationism's theological heritage runs through Wesleyan-Holiness/Arminian tradition; cessationism's heritage runs through Reformed/Calvinist tradition. - Quote: "A lot of them find their theological roots in a Wesleyan holiness tradition, a tradition that focuses a real ton on on personal responsibility, holiness. It's Armenian by nature." (Josh, ~00:15:58) - Josh draws an analogy to the East–West Great Schism and a linguistics example (gendered nouns) to argue that underlying frameworks shape downstream conclusions even when neither side intends deception. #### ⏱️ [00:22:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=1361) "God told me" vs. wisdom and providence - Miller argues neither side actually holds the extreme version attributed to it: most cessationists with a providence view are functionally compatibilist, and no legitimate continuationist treats personal revelation as on par with Scripture — "those who do, we don't call them charismatics, we call them cult leaders." #### ⏱️ [00:28:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=1704) Altar calls/impartation vs. ordinary means of grace - Charismatic services emphasize altar calls, "activation," and impartation of gifts; cessationist/Reformed services emphasize ordinary means of grace. - Josh describes his and Miller's own church practice as a deliberate both/and: liturgically ordered, weekly communion, creedal recitation, *and* room within the liturgy for prophetic words and prayer for the sick. #### ⏱️ [00:36:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=2185) Miller's testimony: deliverance during ordinary prayer - Miller recounts praying for a man with drug-induced demonic visions; unexpectedly delivered from the visions during a normal prayer session — extraordinary breakthrough occurring inside ordinary practice. #### ⏱️ [00:40:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=2407) Suspicion of motive and the Azusa Street backstory - Josh traces the origin of mutual suspicion to Azusa Street (1904): mostly uneducated, non-seminary-trained Pentecostals were dismissed as "demonized"/"crazy" by seminary-trained mainline critics. - Quote: "You got a group of people who can do the stuff, and they're typically by and large uneducated, not seminary trained." (Josh, ~00:40:42) - Josh cites John MacArthur's line that if signs and wonders existed, would God give them to people with "this bad theology," noting MacArthur's own G3 conference charged roughly double what The Remnant Radio's conference charged. #### ⏱️ [00:55:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=3354) Judging by the worst instead of the best - Quote: "when you hyperfixate on those things, but you don't engage with our best, you don't engage with the Grudams and the Keners and the the John Mark Ruthvens... you're gonna typ cast the whole space." (Josh, ~00:56:22) - Miller flips it: continuationists rarely engage cessationism's best exponents either — Calvin, Warfield, Gaffin. - Josh names this pattern: "It's so much easier to think you're right when you won't actually look at the good arguments." #### ⏱️ [01:00:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDmzY30Ddl4&t=3604) Wrap-up and the Destiny Image tangent - Unplanned critique of Destiny Image for releasing "Breaking the Time Code," which the hosts call New Age-adjacent, citing a foreword by Troy Brewer and mention of Larry Sparks and Tina Pew. - Both hosts concede this is exactly the kind of material that gives cessationists legitimate grounds for suspicion of the continuationist movement. ## 📚 References - [The Remnant Radio (YouTube channel)](https://www.youtube.com/@theremnantradio) - Justin Peters (cessationist apologist; comment-section exchange referenced but not linked) - John MacArthur — quoted paraphrase on signs/wonders and "bad theology" - Jack Deere — cited book/arguments on cessationism critique - Sam Storms — cited for grammatical argument on apostolic signs vs. spiritual gifts; referenced debate with Justin Peters - John Mark Ruthven — book on the cessation of the charismata - Wayne Grudem, Craig Keener, Ben Witherington III, D.A. Carson — cited as continuationist/pro-gifts scholars - John Calvin, B.B. Warfield, Richard Gaffin — cited as cessationism's serious scholarly exponents - Destiny Image (publisher) — "Breaking the Time Code," foreword by Troy Brewer, with mention of Larry Sparks and Tina Pew ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Josh and Michael spend the hour arguing that most of the friction between continuationists and cessationists isn't really a disagreement over whether miracles happen today — it's a disagreement produced by two different theological starting points, two different vocabularies for describing the same experiences, and a century-old habit of assuming the worst about the other side's motives that traces back to the class and education divide at the 1904 Azusa Street revival. They keep circling back to one diagnostic move: both camps judge the other by its worst, most public examples rather than doing the harder work of reading each other's best material, while also admitting near the end that some of what's published under the charismatic banner (specifically by Destiny Image) genuinely earns the suspicion cessationists direct at the movement. ## 📰 Newsletter Two hosts who identify as continuationists spend an hour doing something a little unusual for a "debate" show: instead of relitigating whether the sign gifts are active today, Josh Lewis and Michael Miller try to diagnose *why* continuationists and cessationists keep misunderstanding each other in the first place. The catalyst is refreshingly human — Josh got his own definition of cessationism wrong in an earlier video, got called out publicly by cessationist apologist Justin Peters, and used the resulting comment-section spat as a case study. From there the conversation covers different theological family trees, mismatched vocabulary for near-identical experiences, a 1904 Azusa Street backstory for why each camp suspects the other's motives, and a candid closing admission that a major charismatic publisher (Destiny Image) has put out content that legitimately feeds cessationist suspicion. If you follow either side of this debate — or just want a model for how to disagree about doctrine without assuming bad faith — this is worth the hour. ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Not applicable to this source. #### OSPO - Not applicable to this source. #### Community - Not applicable to this source. #### WordPress - Not applicable to this source. #### The WPCC - Not applicable to this source. ### FAIR - Not applicable to this source. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Theological "family of origin" predicts default vocabulary and posture more strongly than it predicts actual doctrinal positions on individual gifts. - H2: Exposure to the opposing camp's most rigorous scholarship (rather than its most extreme popularizers) measurably reduces perceived hostility and straw-manning between continuationists and cessationists. - H3: Public social-media disputes between representatives of each camp increase in-group solidarity and out-group suspicion regardless of the substantive merits of the specific claim being disputed. - H4: The "quench the Spirit" and "manipulating God" accusations exchanged by the two camps describe the same underlying disagreement rather than genuinely distinct theological claims. - H5: Publishers and platforms that aggregate charismatic content without doctrinal vetting measurably increase cessationist distrust of continuationism as a whole, independent of mainstream continuationist scholarship's actual positions. ### 📊 Methodology - H1/H2: Survey or interview study of self-identified continuationists and cessationists, coding denominational/theological lineage against language used to describe spiritual experiences; a pre/post exposure study assigning participants scholarly texts from the opposing camp. - H3: Content analysis of public debate/comment-section exchanges tracking sentiment and in-group affirming comments before and after a public callout. - H4: Comparative theological/linguistic analysis mapping specific phrases onto the underlying claims each camp says they are making, checking for functional equivalence. - H5: Survey of cessationist leaders on which specific continuationist publishers or authors most shape their perception of the movement. ### ❓ Questions - Is the Wesleyan-Holiness/Reformed genealogy claim historically accurate across the whole continuationist movement, or mainly true of classical Pentecostalism specifically? - How much of the "quenching the Spirit" critique that Miller partially concedes is a fair theological point versus a rhetorical concession made for the sake of ecumenical goodwill on the show? - Would Justin Peters agree with the hosts' characterization of his debate with Sam Storms as "ad hominem" and lacking theological engagement, or is that itself a version of the "judge by the worst representation" pattern the hosts warn against? - Does the hosts' own hybrid position represent a genuinely third way, or does it just relocate the same tensions inside one church? - To what extent does Destiny Image's publishing pattern actually shape mainstream cessationist opinion of continuationism, versus being a convenient anecdote? ### 🔮 Future Research - A follow-up conversation directly between the hosts and Justin Peters testing whether the diagnostic framework offered here actually reduces talking-past-each-other in real time. - Historical research tracing how much of contemporary cessationism actually differs from Reformation-era cessationism. - A content audit of charismatic publishers to quantify how much output is theologically mainstream versus New Age-adjacent. ### 💡 Implications - For pastoral practice: churches that intentionally blend ordinary means of grace with room for prophetic ministry and prayer for healing may reduce some of the false dichotomies discussed. - For publishing/platform governance: charismatic publishers who don't theologically vet authors create reputational externalities for the entire continuationist movement. - For online discourse: public correction is treated by the hosts as legitimate and worth accepting gracefully, but the same public, comment-section format is also identified as the mechanism that produces character-assassination-style engagement. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade approximately 9–10 (conversational spoken register, occasional theological jargon surrounded by plain-language explanation). #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: none — audio/video talk-show format with no on-screen diagrams. - Improve: a two-column chart (Continuationist emphasis / Cessationist emphasis) for each of the five causes discussed would help. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: strong fit natively — conversational two-host format, storytelling carries the argument well in audio alone. - Improve: a tighter chaptered audio version with spoken chapter markers. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: hosts define terms as they go and use analogies to explain abstract theological drift. - Improve: a glossary of recurring terms would help verbal learners unfamiliar with Reformed vocabulary. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: minimal — but Josh's invitation to visit their conference is a real-world experiential suggestion. - Improve: a structured "how to visit the other camp's church/conference respectfully" checklist. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: hosts build a genuine causal chain (theological stream → vocabulary → assumed motive → judgment by worst examples → breakdown in dialogue). - Improve: a numbered outline or decision-tree graphic mapping that causal chain. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: the co-host dialogue format itself models productive disagreement. - Improve: an accompanying discussion guide with prompts for small groups. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: invites private reflection implicitly but no structured self-check material. - Improve: a short self-assessment tool. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: none — no ecological framing in this content. - Improve: not a natural fit for this material. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: standard YouTube video page; auto-generated captions exist but contain errors (speaker-turn markers as ">>", garbled proper nouns). - Improve: publish a human-corrected transcript with proper heading structure and named speakers. #### Keyboard navigation - Present: standard YouTube player keyboard controls apply. - Improve: chapter markers would let keyboard users jump between discussion sections. #### Contrast and readability - Present: not assessable from transcript alone. - Improve: N/A for this content type. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: N/A — video content. - Improve: N/A. #### Media and captions - Present: auto-generated English captions available. - Improve: manually corrected captions, especially for proper nouns which auto-captions mangle badly. #### Forms and interactions - Present: N/A. - Improve: N/A. #### Standards reference - Gap identified maps to WCAG 2.2 AA 1.2.2 (Captions, Prerecorded) — auto-captions are present but not accurate. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: gestures at cross-cultural linguistic examples and the East-West schism. - Improve: the discussion is entirely within white American evangelical/Reformed-charismatic discourse; no engagement with global Pentecostalism, despite Azusa Street itself having significant Black and multiethnic leadership (William Seymour) that goes unmentioned. #### Inclusive language - Present: mostly plain-spoken, direct language; terms defined as introduced. - Improve: some casual dismissiveness ("uneducated," "woo woo") risks reading as classist/dismissive even when intended critically of their own camp. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: consistent two-host structure, topic outline stated up front. - Improve: the stated five-part outline isn't followed in order and runs tangential; clearer signposting would help. #### Representation - Present: named figures skew heavily toward white American male theologians and pastors on both sides. - Improve: no women theologians or global-South charismatic leaders named as scholarly authorities. #### Psychological safety - Present: hosts model gracious public correction and caution against assuming the worst of the other side's motives. - Improve: despite this stated value, the episode names specific living individuals in ways that could read as public callouts. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - The causal chain from theological lineage to default vocabulary to assumed motive is a coherent, falsifiable inductive argument, supported with multiple concrete examples — location: ~00:15:32–00:22:00. - The tu quoque observation about conference pricing is a valid rebuttal that undercuts the specific accusation of unique charismatic greed — location ~00:51:12–00:52:10, though based on recalled rather than documented figures. #### Fallacies - **Straw man** (named by the hosts themselves): the "go empty out the hospital if you really have the gift of healing" characterization of charismatic belief about healing — location ~00:03:00–00:13:00. - **Hasty generalization / weak-man** (named by the hosts, applied to both camps): judging an entire movement by its worst public examples — location ~00:55:54–00:58:41. The episode itself spends more time citing continuationism's worst offenders than cessationism's, without balancing comparably. - **Genetic fallacy / ad hominem circumstantial** (not fully named by the hosts): John MacArthur's line — "if these signs and wonders did exist, do you think that they would be given to people with this bad theology?" — location ~00:47:56–00:48:06. - **Ad hominem** (named directly by Josh): Justin Peters' debate approach with Sam Storms, characterized as failing to engage theological arguments — location ~00:57:41–00:58:03. - **Possible No True Scotsman** (not caught by the hosts): Miller's line that continuationists who treat personal revelation as on par with Scripture "we don't call them charismatics, we call them cult leaders" — location ~00:24:58–00:25:10. - **Appeal to motive / bulverism (mutual, described but not resolved)**: both camps' habitual assumption of the other's bad motive is described as a pattern the hosts want to move past — location ~00:40:07–00:54:00 — but the episode itself continues to speculate about Justin Peters' psychological state even while critiquing exactly this move. #### Tone of voice - Largely warm, self-deprecating, and collegial between the two hosts, with genuine disagreement handled without hostility. Tone shifts noticeably sharper when discussing named outside figures not present to respond — Justin Peters, John MacArthur, Destiny Image. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - **Deny**: Justin Peters (reported secondhand) denies ever having "knowingly" misrepresented charismatics — the hosts treat this as a minimizing denial. - **Attack**: Both camps engage in character attacks in place of substantive theological engagement; Josh also directly attacks Justin Peters' debate conduct as "ad hominem" and suggests he "lives in an echo chamber" — notably, this is the hosts' own attack on a named individual's character, occurring inside an episode that critiques exactly this pattern. - **Reverse victim/offender**: not a clean fit for this content — no single accusation-of-wrongdoing/counter-accusation structure. The closest analogue is rhetorical: cessationist doctrinal boundary-setting gets reframed by continuationists as spiritual offense ("quenching the Spirit," fear, control) rather than legitimate pastoral judgment. - Emotional cues/rhetoric: heavy use of typecasting language ("brain on a stick," "cold dead academics," "woo woo," "dead orthodoxy") by both camps as reported by the hosts. ## 🎯 Conclusion The episode's real contribution isn't a fresh argument for or against continuationism — it's a fairly candid, self-implicating anatomy of *why* two theologically serious camps keep failing to hear each other: different theological genealogies, mismatched vocabulary for similar experiences, inherited mutual suspicion dating to Azusa Street, and a shared bad habit of judging the other side by its worst public examples instead of its best scholars. Practical next step for a reader: use the episode's own five-part framework as a checklist before writing off someone in the "opposite" camp. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Theological lineage shapes cross-camp vocabulary, not just doctrine > [!quote] ID:rw_JDmzY30Ddl4_01 > "A lot of them find their theological roots in a Wesleyan holiness tradition, a tradition that focuses a real ton on on personal responsibility, holiness. It's Armenian by nature." **Context & use**: - ~00:15:58 — Josh's core thesis segment on theological streams. - Explains why continuationist/cessationist disagreement often isn't really about the gifts themselves but about inherited Arminian vs. Calvinist emphases on responsibility vs. sovereignty. **Tags**: #xref **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Both camps judge the other by its worst, not its best > [!quote] ID:rw_JDmzY30Ddl4_02 > "When you hyperfixate on those things, but you don't engage with our best, you don't engage with the Grudams and the Keners and the John Mark Ruthvens... you're gonna typecast the whole space." **Context & use**: - ~00:56:22 — Josh's direct naming of the hasty-generalization pattern that structures most cross-camp conflict in this episode. - Central diagnostic claim of the whole video. **Tags**: #xref #aphorisms **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### Azusa Street's class divide seeded a century of mutual suspicion > [!quote] ID:rw_JDmzY30Ddl4_03 > "You got a group of people who can do the stuff, and they're typically by and large uneducated, not seminary trained... they're throwing theological rocks." **Context & use**: - ~00:40:42 — Josh's historical explanation for why continuationists and cessationists default to suspecting each other's motives. **Tags**: #xref #articleseed **Highlight**: [view highlight](readwise://) <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Cross-camp disagreements often encode vocabulary mismatch, not substantive disagreement **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): When two groups accuse each other of opposite errors using structurally parallel language, check whether they're describing the same underlying practice through incompatible vocabularies before assuming a real doctrinal gap exists. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Theological lineage shapes cross-camp vocabulary, not just doctrine]] [[#Both camps judge the other by its worst, not its best]] **Scope & conditions**: Holds when both groups can independently describe the disputed practice in neutral terms and largely agree on the description; breaks down when the described practices are actually different, not just differently named. **Links**: - [[Steelmanning as a discourse discipline]] — because extends - [[Azusa Street sociology of religion]] — because evidence-for <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Look up whether John Mark Ruthven's "On the Cessation of the Charismata" is available for a closer read #xref - [F2] Verify the claimed G3 vs. Remnant Radio conference pricing comparison (~$300+ vs. ~$160-170) cited from memory in the episode #xref ### → Things 3 - [ ] Note John Mark Ruthven's cessation-of-charismata book as a possible future deep-read source — theological-dialogue #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other.md|Why Continuationists and Cessationists Keep Talking Past Each Other by Josh Lewis, Michael Miller]] ## Highlights - A lot of them find their theological roots in a Wesleyan holiness tradition, a tradition that focuses a real ton on on personal responsibility, holiness. It's Armenian by nature. Uh so personal choice, free will, those things are really highly valued. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kxnwjtgt218szjgtzptgbtdk)) - Note: Josh's core thesis: continuationism's Wesleyan-Arminian roots vs. cessationism's Reformed-Calvinist roots shape default vocabulary and posture. - Tags: atom/literature/h3, theological-genealogy - You got a group of people who can do the stuff, and they're typically by and large uneducated, not seminary trained. When I say uneducated, that's what I mean. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kxnwjy8wq2h8mkwae1f6tx3j)) - Note: Josh's historical explanation for mutual suspicion, traced to the 1904 Azusa Street class/education divide. - Tags: azusa-street-history, atom/literature/h3 - Like when you're doing that, you're hanging out in those spaces, man, you're gonna typ cast the whole space because you're not you're not dealing with our best. I'm not saying you can't criticize our worst. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kxnwjwbnpt8bckcnstapj956)) - Note: Central diagnostic claim of the episode: both camps typecast the other by its worst examples rather than engaging its best scholars. - Tags: atom/literature/h3, judge-by-worst-not-best