Talk:Baptists/Archive 3

Baptists are not Anabaptists

Some won't like this way of thinking: what defines the religious classification is not similarity in faith, it is cultural heritage: the unpleasant simile is that South American Condor is neither a vulture, nor a raptor, but rather Storks, despite superficial similarity. If then anabaptists arose as an early splitoff from the Reformeds, they are reformeds or schismatic reformeds. Similarly Baptists arose from a puritan cultural environment, then they're either puritans or schismatic puritans, sort of - and puritans are kind'a'anglicans. Baptist/Anabaptist comparison is kind of inappropriate in the initial paragraph, I think. Opinions? User:Rursus 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read history instead of assuming that Baptists were the anabaptists you will see that the denominational name started with an off shoot of puritanism. Most Baptists have a Calvinistic influence in their theology; whereas the anabaptists strongly disagreed with John Calvin's theology as is shown in history books and the great history book Martyrs Mirror

Rursus, I think that -- when they were often called "anabaptists" (meaning "again" baptised, from Catholics baptised at infancy requesting to be baptised as an adult) -- is just as well left out of the first paragraph, an edit which has been made. The article is certainly none the worse for Presbyter's edit, but I think we need to be aware this isn't a completely "erroneous statement about anabaptists", whether or not one accepts any connection to the Continental Anabaptists. They often (commonly) were "called anabaptists". For example, when seven baptist congregations in London issued a confession of faith in 1644, they wrote, "A Confession of Faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists..." http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm - Rlvaughn 15:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. I see! More like a confusion between technical descriptive terms and taxonomies of heritage then. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting side-bar is that John Smyth tried to link up with the Mennonites, but passed away before doing so.

Stevertigo's recent edit: "Baptist is a Christian denomination descended from Anabaptist Protestantism" is highly contentious. For a good introduction to some of the issues, see 'Baptist Restorationism' in the 'Origins' section of the article. Arguably, the Anabaptist influence was indirect i.e. filtered through the debates amongst English Dissenters during their time in exile in Amsterdam. However, Thomas Helwys was a much more significant figure in establishing the identity of the sect, rather than the Minnonite-influenced John Smyth. Later, around the time of the English Revolution, the situation became confused when early Baptists found themselves being labelled 'Anabaptists' (one of the traditional labels for Protestant 'heretics' of many types) by their religious opponents. To summarise, Baptist origins are in English Dissent. Continential European Anabaptists did influence the early sect when it was in its infancy but its impact was limited. Yozzer66 13:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"What defines the religious classification is not similarity in faith, it is cultural heritage" is of course just part of the story, with theology being the other. Both "lineages" deserve description, even though for certain denominations the lineage jumps around a bit. -Ste|vertigo 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with that. Universe is never as simple as we believe. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

i disagree with the title. not all baptists are, but most believe the same principles, just with a different name. I belong to the First Missionary Baptist Church of Mascotte, but believe the same as the anabaptists. Snick's Friend (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Baptist and anabaptist deferintiate in crtian areas and i think we should have a clear distincton between the two. THANK YOU-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literaryhero (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

lede problems

Problems with how the lede is written, not what it contains: (Underlined phrases are unnecessary religious language or unclear jargon).

"A Baptist is a person with faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel and who has confessed that faith by submitting to an immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This is too general because there are other believer's baptists out there who are not Baptists. Define what Baptist (capitals) means as a denominational term because thats what this article is about.

"The Baptist movement began when John the Baptist baptized Jesus with a deep water immersion in the River Jordan."

This is a claim (about a "movement"), one which is generally called "restorationist" because it asserts that its indirect traditions are directly linked to ancient ones.

"Jesus subsequently established the first baptistic congregation among the Jews and the movment has spread to most (if not all) nations under heaven at this present day."

"Subsequently" tries to build off the prior claim (without citing it as a claim), "baptistic" tries to show that Jesus' baptism was "Baptist-like" as if to emphasise the direct connection.

"Theologically, Baptists emphasize the absolute authority of the Scriptures"

Just say "the Bible".

"Consequently, they acknowledge faith in Jesus as the Savior as the only way of eternal life," believer's baptism by full immersion as the only baptism, and the congregational governance system as the only valid form of church government. Baptist churches often associate in national organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Convention, and the American Baptist Association, as well as hundreds of regional and local associations. There are also many Independent Baptist churches who do not participate in any organized associations but, nonetheless, have vigorous fellowship with other likeminded churches.

"Consequently" like "subsequently" is just conversational language that tries to be logical. "Only way," "only valid form," "likeminded," are claims, not "acknowledgements," according to NPOV - which guides all of the writing here on Wikipedia. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Baptist restorationism

While looking at this article today, I noticed a change that was made earlier in the month. Under the "Origins" section the sub-headings were changed to "Traditional" and "Baptist restorationism". Though I don't think "restorationism" is out of line or even necessarily inaccurate, it is a term that has typically been applied to Christian groups other than Baptist. Out of curiosity, I googled the term and got only two hits: this Wikipedia entry and some comments in an abstract of The cultural renewal of slave religion: Charles Price Jones and the emergence of the holiness movement in Mississippi, by David Douglas Daniels. Interestingly, in that hit, "Landmarkism" was identified as a type of "Baptist restorationism" contra to the article here. Anyway, whether or not the term is a good one, I think it would be best to stick with terms more commonly used by Baptist historians. Thoughts?? - Rlvaughn 05:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S., for an example one can see the four categories of Bruce T. Gourley at this site: Views of Baptist Origins. Gourley is Associate Director of The Center for Baptist Studies of Mercer University. - Rlvaughn 05:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: BAPTIST RESTORATIONISM - The term "traditional" has been changed to "Baptist Perpetuity" and my thought is that Baptist Perpetuity and Baptist Restorationism constitute a succinct and accurate model for presenting the views of Baptist origins.

I looked at Mr. Gourley's web-site and it is clear that his motive is to discredit anything other than the restorationist viewpoint. In typical modernist style, he boasts of the morally superior character of his historical views, characterizing the other views as incredulous and being born out of bias. I find his following statement downright laughable:

"However, many of the historical churches which Landmarkists label as Baptist churches were actually heretical in regards to doctrine."

While this statment is certainly accurate, it proves too much for Mr. Gourley. For if being "heretical in regards to doctrine" means that these churches were not part of Baptist history, then what is to be said of the so called "moderate" Baptists with which Mr. Gourley identifies, who have fully embraced the modernist heresy?

Personally, I will not sumbit to the Baptist left's attempt to define what I am as a Baptist. I am just as capable of discerning Baptist history as any of them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.105.65.5 (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2007

RE: BAPTIST RESTORATIONISM - P.S. I made the changes in the article on Baptists. I just registered so I am no longer anonymous. Mark Osgatharp 07:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bro. Mark, two points:

1. I linked Gourley's article not as agreement with everything he writes, but as an online example I found of what are fairly common ways to categorize the various views of Baptist origins. If you know of a better one, feel free to call our attention to it.

2. Somewhere within Wikipedia guidelines is a statement about not using original research so that people don't just fill up the encyclopedia with their own ideas. "Baptist Restorationism", however accurate it may be, is a relatively new and novel way of categorizing Baptist origins (that is, as an accepted term), as far as I can tell. Perhaps it will catch on, but until then I don't feel we should use it in this encyclopedia. - Rlvaughn 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the term "restorationist" is fairly plain, and Baptist origins in fact are in late Protestantism. Thats the definition of "restorationism." Even if the term isnt accurate, the claim that Baptists belong to the first congregation is just a claim, and the wording has to use the word "claim". -Ste|vertigo 07:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stevertigo, as I stated above, I am not opposed to the meaning or specificity of the term "restorationism". It is just that my understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines would be to report in terms that have already been used in writings rather than making up our own terms for the encyclopedia articles. Am I interpreting the guidelines incorrectly? - Rlvaughn 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just poorly written, even if there is a legitimate point about what Baptists claim the origins of Baptist traditions are: -Ste|vertigo 08:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"A Baptist is a member of a Baptist church or any follower of Jesus Christ who believes that baptism is administered by the full immersion of a confessing Christian. Baptist churches are usually regarded as an Evangelical Protestant denomination originating from the English Puritan movement. However, there are some religious scholars, usually Baptists themselves, who disagree with this view of the origins of the Baptist faith. These scholars argue that Baptists date all the way back to the time of Jesus and John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus in the River Jordan. These scholars do not believe that Baptists originated in the Protestant Reformation 1500 years later. They argue that there have always been those who didn't follow any organized "denominational" system, rather they practiced their faith in the same manner as the early Christians mentioned in the book of Acts in the Bible. They claim to be successors to these early churches."

I also agree with Mark and stevertigo that this is poorly written and that the introduction should not be jumping into the issue of origins. - Rlvaughn 05:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is poorly written. The differing views of Baptist origins are dealt with in a later section. An opening statement should focus on a generalized conception of what a "Baptist" or a Baptist church is rather than jumping right in the middle of an issue over which there is large disagreement among Baptists.

I also think it is a misrepresentation of Baptists to assert that their chief identifying characteristic is a baptism by immersion. The chief identifying characteristic of Baptists is the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures. The Baptist doctrines of baptism, church autonomy, and liberty of conscience are consequences of this first and fundamental belief. Here is a link to an old article that sets for the matter very well. http://elbourne.org/baptist/whybaptist/01_distinctive_baptist.html Mark Osgatharp

• The view that the "chief identifying characteristic of Baptists is the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures" is not helpful. This would fail to distinguish Baptists from numerous other Protestant Christian denominations. Given that most Protestant denominations have believed in "the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures", why have Baptists bothered to maintain a separate organisational existence for centuries? Clearly, the statement contains elements that are necessary but insufficient in defining a Baptist. The things that distinguish Baptists from other Protestant Christians are rooted in the theological differences between Protestants from the Reformation to the present-day. Yozzer66 12:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why must Baptists be defined by their differences from other denominations? Why can't they just be defined for what they are? You asked, "Given that most Protestant denominations have believed in "the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures", why have Baptists bothered to maintain a separate organisational existence for centuries?" Because Baptists put the theory into practice. You said, "Clearly, the statement contains elements that are necessary but insufficient in defining a Baptist." If that statement stood alone, you might have point. But the paragraph went on to state the doctrines Baptists draw from the principle of Scripture authority. Mark Osgatharp

• Mark, I assume that we agree that a belief in "the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Scriptures" is a key element in what defines all orthodox Protestant Christianity. However, to argue that the Baptists are the only ones who "put theory into practice" is unnecessarily provocative. The point is that Protestants have always differed as to their theories about how 'the Lordship of Christ' actually translates into every day life, as well as to how to interpret scripture. There is no side-steping these differences. They have existed for centuries. Nor is it productive to assume that any one tradition has a monopoly on insight, virtue and consistency. As Oliver Cromwell once said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken". Yozzer66 14:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yozzer, My edits did not make any mention of the inconsistency of Protestant theory and practice. I only stated the Baptist view and the consequent doctrines. There is nothing unduly provacative about that; it is merely stating what Baptists themselves claim to be which is what someone reading an encyclopedia article ought to learn. However, I might add that traditional Protestantism has allowed an admittedly greater role to tradition in church practices than have the Baptists. This has been one of the primary difference between the Baptists and the Protestants. As for the quote from Cromwell, this is not about whether or not Baptists might be wrong. Rather, it is about what Baptists believe. Mark Osgatharp

i.e. KJV?

Why does the opening section reference the Christian Bible with "i.e. KJV." There are certainly many KJV-Only Baptists, but as a whole, this is not the majority. I am going to remove the IE for the moment as Christian Bible (properly linked) is good enough.

Never mind, someone beat me to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

"Christian Bible" is not good enough as there are notable differences in Bible translations. Which versions do Baptists generally use? Is it the New International Version, the Young's Literal Translation, or what?-Ste|vertigo 08:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a simple answer. The King James Version still has the most market saturation, which is to say that it is the most widely purchased in the world, but not necessarily the most highly regarded as far as translations go. Several large and influential organizations (such as John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church and Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) have endorsed the English Standard Version, while many Baptists have adopted the use of the New International Version for their daily reading. Most non-English translations are either based off the NIV, KJV, or rely on more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The New American Standard Bible remains the top translation choice for many seminaries, but the King James Version remains in many pew racks. I think it's sufficient to say that Baptists in general recognize the Bible as authoritative. HokieRNB 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats a genuine answer. I think its germane to the article and deserves a section. Now, what about fixing up the writing in the lede paragraphs? -Ste|vertigo 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It reads much better now. -Ste|vertigo 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Single Women Missionaries?

"Single women are no longer commissioned as missionaries, " was recently added to the article, without even a conclusion to the sentence, much less a source. Is this true? HokieRNB 13:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, HokieRNB, for the question, and for pointing to the comma that should be a period. I have requested clarification from the NAMB, and will post my findings. Meanwhile, I have removed the claim pending verification. With appreciation, Afaprof01 17:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I comment, I would like to point out that one must take care to seperate Baptists and Southern Baptists. All Southern Baptists are Baptists but not all Baptists are Southern Baptists (and it has nothing to do with where you live). But, I would suggest that you check out the International Mission Boards requirements for missionary service (http://going.imb.org/shorterm.asp and http://going.imb.org/longterm.asp). The IMB certainly appoints single-women as missionaries.

71.63.125.105Matt

needs to be rewritten

The article needs to be rewritten, it is too biased towards the theological and historical point of view of a particular group, without objetively representing the theological variety among baptists. --Thebaptist 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

note: I rescued this comment from Talk:Baptist/Comments HokieRNB 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning need for rewrite. It would be better to fix actual biases. You can help by identifying problem areas that you see. Thanks for sharing your concern. Afaprof01 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sacrament vs Ordinance

User:Thebaptist persists in changing this article back to say "sacrament or ordinance" in spite of the fact that total avoidance of the term "sacrament" in any connection, especially to refer to Believer's Baptism and The Lord's Supper, is a very strong Baptist distinctive. I cannot find any credible information to suggest that any major Baptist group uses "sacrament" in any connection. If you have such credible evidence, please share it here for the edification of all. Thanks. CME GBM 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that as a Baptist, I know have only heard the word sacrament in my church once. Emperor001 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Whereas it would not be entirely incorrect to use the word sacrament, it often carries a meaning with it that Baptists would not hold. That meaning is an appropriation of grace, or saving effect, within Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptists have traditionally held that Baptism and the Supper are outward signs of an inward change. I would stick to 'ordinance' because it does not carry this same meaning with it, in fact it is a neutral term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmadisongraceii (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Of sacraments and ordinances

Baptists use both words with the same meaning, this is not a theological dispute, but an intent to reflect usage. The theological distinctiveness of the Baptist position, does not depend on the choice of words.

For documentation see Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought) edited by Anthony R. Cross, and Philip E. Thompson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thebaptist (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Here are some sources: (1) "Is Baptist Sacramentalism an Oxymoron?” in Baptist Sacramentalism, eds. A. R. Cross and P.E. Thompson (Carlisle (U.K.): Paternoster Press, 2003); (2) Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought) James I. Packer (Foreward), Carlisle (U.K.): Authentic Media 2004; (3) More Than A Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery Of Baptismal Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought) Stanley K. Fowler Carlisle, U.K.: Authentic Media 2004. Fowler's research encourages Baptists to consider the view of baptism as sacramental as a viable option. He argues that understanding baptism as "sacramental" is not a new concept for Baptists but rather is an idea that is firmly rooted both in the biblical text and historically in mainstream seventeenth-century Baptist thought. In the twentieth century, British Baptists began to reexamine baptismal theology, and Fowler finds a number of prominent British Baptists who question the interpretation that baptism is solely a symbolic act. The argument is primarily dependent on the writings of prominent British Baptists. Fowler wisely includes theological voices, including that of Karl Barth, that critique the sacramental position.

Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with User:Thebaptist who claims this is not a theological dispute. It very much is a theological issue. I recommend that the section heading be reverted to ORDINANCES, and that the text acknowledge that British Baptists have begun to reexamine baptismal theology by questioning the interpretation that baptism is solely a symbolic act. These sources should be listed in the article. While I find the issue and the ongoing debate to be an interesting, the sacramental view is not one held by most Baptists, not even in the UK. As one reviewer wrote: "Students of Baptist theology will enjoy this provocative look at a seemingly forgotten debate." Our article should not confuse readers with Baptist Sacramentalism, the Baptist Calvinism Resurgence, or any other debates among the theologians. CME GBM 04:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this points to the need for an article on Baptist Sacramentalism. Based on your own evidence, there is clearly some question regarding the issue in Baptist circles, and is not such a shut case as had been initially represented. Would the following be considered an appropriate compromise? HokieRNB 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"While many Baptist groups avoid the use of the term 'sacrament' because of its implication that God uses these rituals as a means of grace, some have begun to reexamine the theology of the ordinances by questioning the interpretation that they are solely symbolic acts."

See this post on Challies' blog for good treatment. HokieRNB 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

While I mentioned the book, the main point is not about sacramentalism; it is to acknowledge that some Baptists prefer the term sacraments, while others prefer ordinances and some use both terms indistinctively. I appreciate your effort in the compromise, but it still fails to recognize that some Baptists use the term "sacraments" without considering them as a mean of grace.

As I see there are two different discussions, one theological about the meaning and content of the ordinances; the other is about word usage, I was trying to reflect the current vocabulary used by Baptists regardless of their theological interpretation.Thebaptist 00:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be especially mindful of how faulty some people's understanding may be about what the term "sacrament" actually means. If there was a group of Baptists who used the word "sprinkle" to mean "immerse", the article should still reflect that a proper understanding of "baptist" includes the idea of "immersion". Don't get me wrong, I'm not with this comment trying to prove any theological point about either means of baptism, but merely to point out that words do have significance and to gloss over the difference between "ordinance" and "sacrament" by saying they are synonyms isn't accurate. HokieRNB 18:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to HokieRNB and Thebaptist. HokieRNB expresses my thoughts far better than I did. After researching thebaptist's evidence plus a lot more in the same vein, I cannot agree that any authority is advocating use the term "sacraments" without considering them as a mean of grace. Glossing over the difference between "ordinance" and "sacrament" by saying they are synonyms really is not accurate. HokieRNB's proposed compromise is good and could include a couple of the references above. I also like thebaptist's suggestion for a new article on Baptist sacramentalism. This user has inspired me to do a lot of research, and I'm grateful for the impetus to learn something new. Where do we go from here? CME GBM 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to drag the issue, but since we are trying to be objective, I think that the article should mention that some Baptists use the word "sacrament" For example John Smyth in 1620 wrote

"(12) That the church of Christ is a company of the faithful; baptised after

confession of sin and of faith, endowed with the power of Christ.

(13) That the church of Christ has power delegated to themselves of announcing the word, administering the sacraments, appointing ministers, disclaiming them, and also excommunicating; but the last appeal is to the brethren of body of the church. (14) That baptism is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and therefore does not belong to infants. (15) That the Lord's Supper is the external sign of the communion of Christ, and of the faithful amongst themselves by faith and love. (16) That the ministers of the church are, not only bishops ("Episcopos"), to whom the power is given of dispensing both the word and the sacraments, but also deacons, men and widows, who attend to the affairs of the poor

and sick brethren. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions. 100-101."

The word "sacrament" is used also by the Midland Confession of Faith (1655)( Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions. 199) and is used by some European and Latin American Baptists, and it is used by some Reformed Baoptists.Thebaptist

• There are several copies of THE 1655 MIDLAND CONFESSION on the Internet. The word "sacrament" does not appear in any of them. For example, http://www.propadeutic.com/faith/midland.html. Its 14th article states that baptism "represent(s) the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ," a non-sacramental statement. Its 15th article refers to "ordinances of Christ."
• According to http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/ohp/jsmyth.htm, this was Smyth's personal confession, never officially published.
• We still have no actual evidence that "some Baptists use the term 'sacraments' without considering them as a mean of grace." Even if "some" do, it doesn't mean they are informed or correct or understand the difference between ordinance and sacrament. To go beyond what HokieRNB has proposed needs evidence that a significant, recognized, organized group or denomination of Baptists officially recognize or sanction the term "sacrament." Meanwhile, I am inserting a variation of the suggested compromise. I think our (at least my) future time can be much better spent on "matters of eternal significance." CME GBM 04:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quoting The Broadman Minister's Manual (one of the definitive manuals for the various types of services in the Baptist Church), Chapter Two: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the very first sentance states: "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are considered ordinances of the church given by command of our Lord." Nowhere is the word 'sacrament' used. ++Arx Fortis 15:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That is to say, Broadman, that is to say, Southern Baptist...that is to say, "The Southern Baptist Variant of the Baptist Church." What Broadman does or does not say does not constitute the entire breadth and depth of the history of the entire Baptist tradition. Sighter Goliant 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"Willy is a term describing a tradition within Christianity." It is? I've never heard of this. Is it short for Roger Williams' last name, or what? Misterdoe 02:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The BAPTIST Acronym

Let's try to keep this acronym of general principles, well, general. Not every Baptist believes in absolute "inerrancy," but "authority" fits everyone. And while every Baptist church practices immersion, not every Baptist church thinks the method of baptism is the necessary component of the rite, and historically speaking it is the question of who and not how we baptize that matters.

In addition, shouldn't the discussion that follows the acronym actually focus on defining the acronym? I know it did at one point, but it's becoming a hodgepodge of unrelated material. This article needs some serious cleanup, especially in the doctrinal area. Sighter Goliant 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the records, I find that the changes in the BAPTIST acronym occurred recently, the result of a fellow named "preacher.titus" who did not post about his contributions or discuss them on the talk page. I have reverted the acronym to its earlier form. Naturally, this is up for discussion, I just think it should have been discussed before it was changed to something that could arguably represent theologically conservative bias. Sighter Goliant 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at all the BAPTIST acronym needs a citation, but does anyone know where it originated? Surely it's not as old as TULIP, but does TULIP need citation? HokieRNB 20:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a citation for it. TULIP has been around for centuries and is referred to often by Reformed theologians. I only read of the BAPTIST acronym when reading it the other day. It's a bit hokey to tell you the truth. --One Salient Oversight 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but only partially. For one thing, the various components of the BAPTIST acronym are all a fairly decent encapsulation of Baptist theology and they work in such a way as to cover a wide range of Baptist bodies without regard to conservative or liberal bias. BAPTIST seems like a convenient way to remember them. I would support a citation if someone can find where it came from, but I don't see it being necessary. Sighter Goliant 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the "S" that stands for "Separation of Church and State" needs to have an explanation alongside it. While some Baptist churches feel that the quoted Biblical passage embraces this separation, a large percentage believe that these verses mean something completely different. In many Baptist churches, the congregation search to infuse religious principles into the govnernment. Saying that Baptists generally believe that this separation is generally accepted, however, is taking one perspective that may not actually be held by a majority of Baptists. This acronym needs to be clarified in what it exactly means.

Splitting the Article

I could see the use for splitting this article and having a section on Baptist Beliefs. We could very briefly mention the acronym and the meaning of each letter, but then have the description of what the various constituent parts of the acronym mean in the new article. It cuts down on clutter and makes this article more encyclopedic and focused. Sighter Goliant 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the Article

From what I see, this article does need to be split, at least not until it has been restructured. This article needs to start off with the facts about what a baptist is. The funny part about splitting this article is that the part being suggested to move is what a baptist generally beleives. If you take the beleifs out of the Baptist, what do you have left? Just another soul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talotta2003 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, split it! Take the deep theology separately, and keep an overview in this article! (If I'm not first to do it! Be quick!!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no rudeness intended! Forget that parenthesis. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Southern Baptists and the BF&M

I was reading this page today when I came across the sentence "...All employees of those groups, as a condition of continued employment, now are required to sign a statement of beliefs that excludes among other things women in pastoral or administrative ministry, and a private prayer language...." As an employee of an SBC Entity--the International Mission Board--I can say this is not a true statement. All IMB missionaries MUST sign their agreement with the Baptist Faith and Message; however, every employee of the IMB is not required to sign. I would have edited the page directly but I couldn't figure out the best way to say it. 71.63.125.105Matt

Origin theories and historical discussion

As far as the origin theories go, the first one is one that is pretty clearly only held by Baptists, and the second appears to be a very Baptist-tinted version. What do actual scholars of religion say? It is unacceptable that the entire discussion of the history and origin of the Baptist movement is given from a blatantly Baptist POV. john k 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The origins section is a total mess. It basically treats the ideological position that the Baptist idea goes back to early Christianity as equivalent to the actual historical fact that the modern Baptist churches arose out of England in the 17th century. These are not competing POVs which must be treated as equivalent. One is a simple historical fact which with anyone mildly acquainted with history must agree. The other is an attempt (which may or may not be legitimate) to trace the major threads of that seventeenth century movement back in time to the early church. Beyond that, so far as I can tell there's more or less no history section beyond this. What a mess. john k 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with above by John K. This is not history but pure POV. The origins section begins, "The perpetuity viewpoint holds that Baptist churches and practices have had perpetual existence since the time of Christ and His apostles." First, viewpoints don't hold things, people do. Secondly, no one but Baptist "scholars" hold this. The section continues with this howler, "[t]he Baptist perpetuity view sees Baptists as separate from Catholicism and other religious denominations and considers, that since the Baptist movement predates the Catholic church, it is not part of the Protestant Reformation." This is pure nonsense as a matter of history, but I suppose if a group believes this, it could go under a subsection of peculiar beliefs etc. (similar to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who, realizing that they do not have an unbroken chain back to the time of Christ, or frankly any evidence of their existence before the 19th and 20th centuries, have opted for a belief system that they are "restorations" of the original church).

Bottom line for anyone who cares about history: the actual history of Baptist's 17th century origins needs to lead the history section of the article (which by the way should be much closer to the top). Baptists' own version of history under a beliefs system subsection might be ok, but it should not be in a history or origins section. Bundas 03:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

External Links

The external links section seems to lengthy and a bit "spammish." Per WP:NOT#DIR, Wikipedia is not a directory. Thoughts, anyone? ++Arx Fortis 07:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Diversity of Baptists

I feel this article to be quite good. It certainly shows the very large diversity of Baptists' Beliefs. This is due to the congregationalist style of church structure. This article gives an even handed overview of Baptists. I see no perjorative tendancies or lack of background information. I am in a graduate program at a seminary that follows current SBC doctrinal statements. I am evangelical Presbyterian (and very much Calvinist). I have a particular interest in Church history, though no expert by any means. As far as beginnings, I think the article makes clear that those Baptists who believe Congregational or "Baptist" church structure was evident in the 1st century, do so not as an historically explicit documented event with no interruptions, but rather is looked at from a current perspective of some congregations,and is rightly stating their claim to that type of ecclesiastical structure. The article is unbiased about that. Although, from my understanding, the actual developement of BAPTISTS, and being called such with continuance, was a 16th, 17th century event that followed, and had similarities with anabaptists, but was not a progression from that. I understand the article to make that clear as well. Even with the use of Sacrement. This is a proper description, although many baptists seem to reject explicitly, or simply by convention, using that particular term. They sometimes refer to it more as an ordinance, being as they feel it's a pulic declaration following the Justification of an individual, as opposed to a necessary step in the progression of salvation. This is one reason that do not hold to infant baptism as say the Presbyterians, or Roman Catholics. A note on that might be added. However, to completely remove that term without explaination would move the article from an unbiased overview, to a particular view.

Thanks,Steve updated July 29, 2007, 4:45 pm EDT

Homosexuality

There's nothing about their views of homosexuality here. A.Z. 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

...besides the fact that this is a controversial issue and that each person is allowed to have their own opinion. A.Z. 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph

This phrase: "Just as each Baptist believer priest with soul competency is equal to all other Baptists in a church..." is very clunky and confusing. There is no need to try to jam priesthood and soul competency into that sentence. I recommend talking about those ideas elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PneumaPilot (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reputation of Baptists in the United States

Surveys have routinely found that most Americans outside of the southern states in the USA have a poor opinion of Baptists. Baptists are often considered dogmatic, fundamentalist, politically-motivated, homophobic, and intolerant. Southern Baptist and many independent Baptist congregations are closely allied with the Religious Right and have been active in campaigns against abortion, feminism, homosexuality, gun control, and the teaching of evolution in public schools, and have voted overwhelmingly in favor of Republican politicians who espouse the deregulation of industry, the abolition or gutting of minimum-wage and worker-safety laws, and the abolition of social welfare programs. Many Southern Baptist leaders, such as Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and Paul Pressler, belong to conservative political groups such as the Council for National Policy. Southern Baptist leaders were among the few religious leaders who supported the Iraq War. Many Southern and independent Baptists have also engaged in evangelistic activities that critics contend are abrasive and inappropriate for modern American culture. For example, Jack T. Chick, an independent Baptist, distributes religious cartoons that call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, imply that religious groups that use a version of the Bible other than the King James Version are part of a Satanic ploy to usher in the reign of the Anti-Christ, and state that contemporary Christian music is from Satan.

Due to the activities of these Baptist groups, many moderate Baptists in the United States have sought to distance themselves from the Baptist label in order to engage in evangelism and outreach more effectively. Many moderate Baptist churches have adopted names such as “Community Church” or “Community Chapel” to avoid being mistakenly associated with fundamentalist Baptist groups. Many moderate Baptists interpret statements from Southern Baptists and some independent Baptists to mean that the SBC and independent Baptists no longer believe in Baptist doctrines of separation of church and state, soul competency, and the central role of Christ's teachings as the key to interpreting the Bible as a whole.

In 2004, the Southern Baptist Convention quit the Baptist World Alliance and severed fellowship with most mainstream Baptist groups in the world. The SBC alleged that the Baptist World Alliance was too liberal and objected to the alliance's acceptance of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a denomination formed by dissident Southern Baptists, as a member. The Southern Baptist Convention later announced plans to pursue closer relationships with independent Baptists and other fundamentalist groups that share its conservative political agenda and fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.

this material needs to be sourced and integrated into the existing article. HokieRNB 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

regarding Jack T. Chick, since he is independent, it is advisable to stress this independence and compare to other common opinions among USA:n Baptists. For the sake of fairness. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I still feel this is not well sourced with one emerging church proponent, one liberal university divinity school dean, one extreme fundamentalist, the urban dictionary, and wikipedia itself - not a compendium of reliable sources to be sure. I think this section is better left completely out of the article. HokieRNB 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that the entire section on the view of Baptists in the United States be flagged for bias. It is poorly cited and does not seem to offer both point and counterpoint on its content. 161.6.165.135 09:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This Baptist/Anabaptist stuff, again

Now my doubts regard the etymology of "Baptist" as regards it's usage with respect to Baptists. I placed a {{fact}}, (citation needed) mark on "Baptist" in the start of the article. The question is:

who did first use the term "Baptist"?

• if the answer is the Baptists themselves, it is likely the word derives directly from greek baptizein (immerse), not from Anabaptism, since the theologies differ vaAAAastly (!!),
• if sarcastic outsiders named the Baptists "Baptists" it is more likely that "Baptists" is actually a shorthand for "Anabaptists",

Said: Rursus ☻ 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Origins section

Actually:

1. it refers to the history of Anabaptists as being the history of Baptists. That story is already written in Anabaptists, so it could instead be referred to in the origins section - as a theory,
2. it should be chronological, from a starting point when Baptists can be securely identified (disregarding theories about Anabaptist heritage and such), forward in time up to today,

Said: Rursus ☻ 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved a section of text

I have taken this section of text out of the article's lead and moved it to the distinctive beliefs. I think it still needs help if it is going to be informative to the majority of readers:

The polity of autonomy is closely related to the polity of congregational governance. Just as each Baptist priest with soul competency is equal to all other Baptists in a church, so each church is equal to every other church. No church or ecclesiastical organization has authority over a Baptist church. Churches can properly relate to each other under this polity only through voluntary cooperation, never by any sort of coercion. Furthermore, this Baptist polity calls for freedom from governmental control.

HokieRNB (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

placement of the Protestant template

I was just curious if there was a reason why the {{Protestant}} template was placed in the bottom of the references section and not somewhere else in the article?--Rockfang (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view?

According to the article, only 22 million out of 110 worldwide Baptists live in North America, but the lead is focused on American Baptists. Worth fixing? 71.198.184.138 (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

historical part is fine, not much modern

The article succeeds in reporting the history of Baptist beliefs, but little is said about the modern situation & controversies. It seems worth including some facts about megachurches, controversies, etc. You don't need any big section, but I'm sure there are some statistics available. For example, what percentage of megachurches have a Baptist heritage, what percentage of Baptist congregations hold certain views on abortion, race, and homosexuality, etc. I understand the desire to avoid convoluted chitchat explaining that some do & some don't. But when such information exists, it should be included. JeffBurdges (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Baptist sub-denominations

The page List of Baptist sub-denominations is an excellent wiki page that used to be referenced in this article but no longer is. In the past, I have purged the main Baptist article of most wikilinks to subdenominations because they already existed on the sub-denominations page and my latest edit does the same thing. The purpose is to remove duplication and to streamline the main Baptist article. Gold Dragon (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Separation of Church and State

This was raised in point 10 above, but not addressed.

My impression (from outside the Baptist church) is that Separation of Church and State is the opposite of what Baptists believe. Does the BAPTIST acronym refer to historical rather than current beliefs? --84.203.65.190 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)