Talk:Baptists/Archive 5

Baptist origins

This article has a strange way of dealing with the origin of the baptist denomination. The multiple "theories" about the origin of baptists are not based on any scholarly research, except the true one, which is that Baptists originated in 17th century puritanism in England. This article cheapens itself by giving voice to these other "theories" which are really just unhistorical religious beliefs. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the beliefs may not have support from scholars, but that does not change the fact that certain Baptists and groups of Baptists have believed these things. The article isn't saying that this is fact; it is saying that some Baptists believe this is fact, and as this is about Baptists then it is appropriate for the article to address Baptist views on Baptist origins. Ltwin (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

74.98.185.73's comment was removed because it was off topic. Please remember: this talk page is to discuss improving the article. Thank you. Ltwin (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC) ]

Per WP:UNDUE, the weight of these two schools of thought is ridiculously off-balance. It should be made clear that the vast majority of Christian and secular scholarship agree that the Baptist movement as it is known today began in the 17th century as part of the Protestant Reformation, in the traditions of puritanism, English separatism, and Anabaptism. Ἀλήθεια 14:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. I didn't write that section and I'm not saying that it has alot of support; I'm just saying that if there are Baptists who believe this then it should be mentioned appropriately. Ltwin (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this new format is much more appropriate. Minority views with marginal scholarly support should not be placed on par with the accepted historical account. HokieRNB 04:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been historically proven that Baptists did not originate in the 17th century, but no one is going to convince you fellows of that, at least not in this limited forum. The two view format fairly represents both views and is 100% unquestionably accurate, since it does not assign correctness to either view. It merely states that both views are widely held - which is true - and that the 17th century view is the majority view - which is also true. User:Mark Osgatharp —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

Additions to the section on the alternative view of Baptist successionism would be welcome with reliable sources. However, it would not be good scholarship to allow the minority view to again hijack the article. Ἀλήθεια 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ἀλήθεια. Ltwin (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 17th century/John Smyth theory is fraught with issues. A. It is not true that the John Smyth church was the first documented Baptist church. B. It is not proved that any Baptist movement sprang out of Smyth's church. C. The same historians who assert that the Baptists began with Smyth also assert that Smyth didn't even practice immersion, which, if it is true (which is by no means certain), then it can't even be said that Smyth church was a Baptist church because Baptists hold that only immersion is baptism. D. It flies in the face of the clear testimony of the 17th century Baptists, as well as their enemies, as to their antiquity. The 17th century view is the "majority" view only in the sense that the majority of current history teachers parrot the view. There have been a substantial number of historians who have ably defended the pre-Reformation and Anabaptist origins of the Baptists. The poor scholarship is on the part of those who advocate a biased view which is based on illogical and unproven theories about John Smyth.User:Mark Osgatharp —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC).

A. What reliable source are you citing to document an earlier Baptist church? B. Which of the multiple sources regarding John Smyth's influence are you calling into question? C. Have you read "The Character of the Beast"? D. What is your point? Ἀλήθεια 23:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As HokieRNB wrote, "Minority views with marginal scholarly support should not be placed on par with the accepted historical account." The history section lede must not stand as it now is. The source on Smyth et al is extremely marginal at best. This Web page attests to the marginality of User:Mark Osgatharp's sources. I respect Mr. Osgatharp's apparently strong belief in Baptist Successionism. The recent revision to the History section gives ample exposure to that alternate but fringe view. Afaprof01 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What reliable source are you citing to document an earlier Baptist church? Anyone who has read extensively in the history of the Baptists knows there are English Baptist churches, such as the Hill Cliffe church, which purport to have been founded prior to the 17th century. If you want me to give you reference to these churches, I can, but I already know what your response will be, which is the typical revisionist response to everything: "your documents are unreliable". B. Which of the multiple sources regarding John Smyth's influence are you calling into question? I have read extensively in Baptist history and have never seen any claim of any proof that John Smyth's church grew past its original circle. I have only seen bald assertions that he founded the Baptist denomination. It matters not one iota what John Smyth preached or wrote or what his church believed, if it can't be shown that the Baptist movement sprang out of his church then it is reckless to charge him with founding the Baptist denomination. C. Have you read "The Character of the Beast"? I honestly don't recall and it is irrelevant to my point. My point is that the same writers who say that John Smyth founded the first Baptist church also say he did not immerse. That makes them incredible as commentators on what constitutes a Baptist church. When you sum up their argument it is basically this: John Smyth started a separatist church, holding Arminian theology, which denied infant baptism, but did not immerse, and, though it can't be documented that the Baptist movement at large sprang from this church, he was the founder of the modern denomination of Baptists. And this is "reliable" scholarship? D. What is your point? The point is that both the Baptists of the 17th century and their enemies assigned to them an origin back of the 17th century and that the revisionist historians, based on no evidence whatsoever, other than the existence of John Smyth's church, have said that the Baptists originated with John Smyth.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"I respect Mr. Osgatharp's apparently strong belief in Baptist Successionism. The recent revision to the History section gives ample exposure to that alternate but fringe view." Fringe view??????? Whose fringe? Thomas Crosby, Joseph Ivimey, Benjamin Evans, John T. Christian, Thomas Armitage, Jesse Mercer, David Benedict, J.M. Pendleton, W.W. Everts, Adam Taylor, G.H. Orchard, T.T. Eaton, J. Jackson Goadby, G.H. Orchard, Robert Cook, J.R. Graves, R.B.C Howell, B.H. Carrol, J. Newton Brown, Francis Wayland? These men may be on the fringe of your fantasy world of the cult of Baptist modernistic academia, but they stand right square in the middle of the mainstream of Baptist life and history. All of that notwithstanding, this has nothing to do with my "strong belief in Baptist successionsism" (which, by the way, is based on the Bible, NOT on Baptist history), it has to do with providing a fair and honest presentation of the facts as they are, over against a lopsided domination of the aberrant and bogus "scholarship" of the theological Baptist left.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (ISBN 0810836815), by James Edward McGoldrick, who after "Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history" concluded that the successionist view is "untenable", and agrees that "Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists... not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church." Or consider William H. Brackney, who concludes that the successionist "approach has been shown to be historically false and misleading..." (in A genetic history of Baptist thought: with special reference to Baptists in Britain and North America, ISBN 0865549133). Mark Osgatharp, do you have similar reliable sources which discredit the account of 17th century Baptist origins? HokieRNB 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"....not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church.." LOL! So he us saying there was less variance between these and the "modern Baptists" - which range from foot washing, falling from grace Free Will Baptists to modernistic anti-Christ, queer marryin' Alliance of Baptists? LOL! You mean to tell me that the slim differences between John Smyth and the Mennonites makes him a Baptist but them not, and yet a Fundamentalist Landmark Misssionary Baptist can be considered the same animal as a modernistic Cooperative Fellowship evolutionist Baptist? And this is the much boasted superior scholarship we hear so much about? But you asked, "do you have similar reliable sources which discredit the account of 17th century Baptist origins?" Of course I do and they are all on record and readily available for the whole world to read. If there was none other - though there are many - John T. Christian's first volume of his two volume history by itself makes the 17th century view untenable to any honest minded person who reads it with comprehension. Have you ever read John T. Christian's history?Mark Osgatharp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Baptist footer template

This Baptist footer template was added to the article and I removed it. I have since nominated the template for deletion. If anybody wants to weigh in, please add to the discussion. Editors might also want to weigh in on the Portal:Baptist. Novaseminary (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Text in Notes section

Is this [1] from the sources or an attempt to insert some unsourced viewpoints? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern about recent edits

I am concerned about the latest edits to this article, epecially the Origins section. While Mark Osgatharp has provided sources for these revisions, I am dismayed that the previous version, which was also sourced, was dramatically changed. The former opening statement, "The modern Baptist denomination is an outgrowth of English Separatism and historically distinct from the Anabaptists, though influenced by them" was sourced. However, it was replaced by the current statement which says the exact opposite. These two views, if sourced properly should both be incorporated in the article, an editor should not remove it just because he or she does not agree with it. Unless reasons can be given for why that text and the sources used should not be in the article, it should not be completely written out of an article only to be exchanged for another point of view.

This new version essentially destroys the balanced approach to the article, as now instead explaining both views, the article only explains the successionism view. Ltwin (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have restored Etymology and Origins sections as they were before the big imbalance. Now we can better see what needs to be changed. I'm sorry to remove the lengthy additions by fellow editor User:Mark Osgatharp, but I'm glad to restore some significant edits that had been removed. Seems to me the Successionist view is far more historic and possibly important than the Anabaptist theory. Even if it has merit, what difference does that make? Afaprof01 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The article, as it was a couple of weeks ago, started with the true statement that successionsim was the traditional view - which it was - and naturally flowed to the novel Separatist view. The successionist view embraces the Anabaptist connection and so it was a fair presentation of both sides without preference for either. Then the article was changed to categorically assert that the Baptist denomination originated with John Smyth which is a patent falsehood. It may be true that some Baptist churches originated with John Smyth (though it is by no means proved that any "general" - pun intended - Baptist movement started with him). That nothwithstanding, the article as it now stands asserts the verifiable truth that the modern Baptist movement grew out of Anabaptism, allows for the influence of John Smyth and the English Separatists (whatever that might have been, which still needs to be demonstrated), and points out that some historians believe that the Anabaptists pre-dated the Reformation, which is also a verifiable truth. That seems to me the most balanced and credible course for the article to follow.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

now it's all screwed up

First of all, "evangelical" does not belong in the opening sentence as a primary qualifier. Many Baptist denominations are in no way identified with "evangelicalism". It is just as much a "mainline" movement as it is an "evangelical" one. Second, there are plenty of Baptist churches and denominations that would not identify as "Congregational" in polity, unless all you mean by "Congregational" is "autonomous". Thirdly, immersion is not necessarily the prime driver of what differentiates Baptists. The theological point at issue is clearly Believer's Baptist. To be sure, the vast majority practice immersion rather than pouring or sprinkling, and many would make it a theological distinction as well, but it's not a universally accepted Baptist truth that only immersion is legitimate. I would like to propose a restoration of the lead paragraph to an earlier state. Ἀλήθεια 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to define "Baptist" so as to allow for every aberration of historic Baptist doctrine, then the only legitimate thing to say is that Baptists don't baptize babies, because beyond that you can find "Baptists" who have advocated and practiced just about anything, from the left wing whacko evolutionist/modernists who really don't believe anything to the right wing whacko Westboro Baptists who go around picketing funerals to fanatical holy rollers of the Pat Robertson stripe. The fact is, the mainstream of Baptist churches are "evangelical" in that they accept the Scriptures as being true and practice immersion and have congregational church government. Any church that advocates doctrines and practices contrary to these historic Baptist emphasis disqualifies itself from identity with the historic Baptist movement. I think it would be totally appropriate to have two separate articles - one for modernist Baptists and one for historic Baptists, because they are really two separate animals.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Evangelical" has nothing to do with Congregational polity nor immersion. Many Presbyterian churches are evangelical. In fact, if you look at historic Baptist doctrine, it would not have been characterized as "Congregational" in nature. I'm not asking to consider every aberration, I'm asking to restore the lead sentence to a former iteration that encompassed a wider perspective. Ἀλήθεια 05:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Wars

In an effort to stop the edit warring, I have reported User:Mark Osgatharp to the Admin. Notice Board. Here is the listing. Others should feel free to flesh out my report if they see fit. All editors should please remeber that nobody owns this article and that major changes should be made by consensus. Novaseminary (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to stop the edit wars then quit warring and start trying to come to a consensus. I made an effort to bring balance and clarity to the article and others insisted on making their POV the positive position of in the article. Some of the edits were so ridiculous that they said the same thing twice and put information in a totally mixed up order. To some people "consensus" means nothing other than "my way or the highway."Mark Osgatharp (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a pattern of disruption from these edit wars from the past couple of weeks. Consensus means coming to some conclusions before editing to prevent continued edit warring. My options include blocking editors and preventing the page from being edited by anyone, neither of which I want to do. Thus I want to see real attempts to set out what the dispute is, and real attempts to address them here before the edits are added to the article. If you're having issues, seek dispute resolution. Any further misuse of undo may result in immediate blocks to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 08:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is this: some editors insist that their POV will always be made positively while opposing POVs will always be qualified. Example: Any statement to the effect that Baptists originated with John Smyth will be stated as fact. Any statement to the contrary will be qualified by such words as "some claim" or some such indicator that it is unverifiable. Though I have been primarily involved in editing the Baptist origins section, I point out that this lopsided and heavy handed tactic has been followed in all the articles relating to the controversy over modernism among Southern Baptists, always casting the conservative Southern Baptists as somehow mis-comprehending the real issues. In controversial matters where such qualifiers must be used, they should certainly be applied evenly to all POVs without giving dominance to the liberal POV which is, after all, the minority and aberrant view among Baptists.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, like it or not the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This is subject to consensus. So, whether you are right or not at some point becomes irrelevant if you cannot verify you are right and convince folks of that. It has to be this way, as unsatisifying as it may be at times, or the whole Wikipedia system would break down. You still seem to be in the minority of editors in supporting the positions you are advocating and are using questionable sources in support. You do not own the article. You can always create your own web page and say whatever you want with respect to these issues, even highlighting how Wikipedia gets it wrong. But you shouldn't continue to try to override consensus. If you look at your talk page, you can see I gently tried to remind you of this back in November and others tried to do the same since 2007. A little graciousness in return would be appreciated. Novaseminary (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary, You can say that I did not verify my points but I did. I verified my points with substantial facts. You verified your's with "McBeth said." I made no effort to assert that successionism is verifiable, because I do not believe it is. I did verifiy the fact that the Baptist name predates the year 1609 by several decades but now that is out of the article, though it had been their for several months. I also verified that the English Baptists predate 1609. What is your answer to that? "questionable sources." Here is what I told Hokie on January 5th: "If you want me to give you reference to these churches, I can, but I already know what your response will be, which is the typical revisionist response to everything: 'your documents are unreliable'." So this is not my article? Is it yours and Mr. McBeth's and those who parrot his views? Is the only "consensus" that means anything the consensus of modernists as if people who lived before the 20th century didn't know anything about anything? If you want to come to some consensus then I request that you contact me personally and we can have some hardball discussion of the matter. My phone is 870-238-0911 or 870-588-6568. My e-mail is markosgatharp@hughes.net. And by the way, Mark Osgatharp is my real name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Osgatharp (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, just to be clear, I never wrote "Macbeth said" or anything like it. I may have reverted edits you made that deleted that. This just supports the fact that you are butting heads with multiple editors, perhaps not even most substantially with me. I will not contact you personally. Even if I did, you and I agreeing is still not consensus. Consensus is reached among the interested editors. If you want to achieve consensus, please comment in the new consensus attempt on this talk page. Otherwise, your edits will continue to be reverted and you may be blocked. I think you are taking this article a little too personally. Novaseminary (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why haven't either of you tried the guidance I linked to above (ie WP:DR). The first logical step would have been to request a neutral third parties view, or make the case on a relevant noticeboard. Using edit summaries is not a substitute for getting consensus here on this page before making the edits. NJA (t/c) 16:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than once reverting a non-consensus edit by Mark Osgatharp, I didn't think I have changed anything Mark Osgatharp edited since your (NJA) comments. The couple of other edits I made since then have been reworks/reordering-of-sentences of edits made by the other editors who are working in good faith. I didn't ask for a third opinion because it says that is for conflicts between two editors. I've actually less substantively contributed to the material Mark Osgatharp has been editing than others, so the disagreement is not as much between Mark Osgatharp and me as between him and every other editor to weigh-in (at least three others). As for making the case on the relevant noticeboard, I thought the edit warring was the best place since it is really Mark Osgatharp's behavior that I have objected to most. Any further guidance, this is the fist time I have had trouble with another editor? Thank you. Novaseminary (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think maybe a relevant board would be a good idea for Mark rather than you actually. The message was aimed at both of you, but it may pertain to him more than you. Anyhow, happy editing. NJA (t/c) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this. I hope you won't need to come back to this! Novaseminary (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Documenting the fact that in this edit, Mark Osgatharp identifies himself as editing from 67.142.130.31. HokieRNB 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins (redux)

According to "Turning Points in Baptist History", by Walter Shurden (Callaway Professor of Christianity and Chair, Department of Christianity, Mercer University), the Baptist denomination started in 1609. He points to three foundational beliefs of 17th century Separatists (Puritans who abandoned efforts at internal reform): Supreme authority of Scripture, a church comprising only believers, and autonomy of local congregations. (link)

According to "The Baptist Story", by Doug Weaver (Associate Professor of Religion and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Religion, Baylor University), the Baptist denomination started in 1609. He also points to the influence of Puritan Separatism, and adds believer's baptism (but not immersion until 1641), religious liberty, and the offices of pastor and deacon to the list of Baptist distinctives. (link).

According to "Baptist Origins", by John Briggs (Senior Research Fellow in Church History, Regent's Park College), the Baptist denomination started in 1609. He, too, cites Puritan Separatism as the driving force behind the formation of the first Baptist church, but also adds that later Smyth identified with the Radical Reformation principles of Anabaptists and Mennonites as well. (link)

Based on these reliable sources (and plenty of others that I would be happy to produce if asked), I would like to see the phrasing "One view of Baptists origins postulates that..." eradicated from this article. Ἀλήθεια 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and think the section should be reworked to include these facts and sources. Novaseminary (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you both suggesting successionism/perpetuity be completely omitted, or do I misunderstand? Afaprof01 (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say omit it entirely, but rather, keep it in perspective. I tried to do that in my recent edits in the section. I wouldn't mind collapsing it further and just make it a sentence with a pointer to the Baptist successionism article (and maybe eliminating the subsections). Novaseminary (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sabbath Debate

Does anyone else think the Sabbath Debate Section is disproportionately long compared to its importance vis-a-vis the rest of the article? Novaseminary (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It was a speck in the desert compared to the other controversies. I'm not sure it's worthy of a subsection. Suggest inclusion as a one-liner in the next section. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An attempt at attaining consensus

An apology

I confess upfront that I have not invested in trying to build consensus in this article, and have done more than my share of being "heavy handed." Where I have wronged another user, been impolite, or in any other way have expressed my frustration inappropriately, I sincerely apologize and ask for the forgiveness of my fellow editors.

In my several years with Wikipedia, I have never witnessed a successful consensus process. I can empathize with User:Mark Osgatharp's apparent frustration and seeing no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.

When I was a kid, our church and my sainted grandmother steeped us in the teachings in the book Trail of Blood, so I'm very familiar with that perspective and held it for many years.

You can't empathize with my "frustration" because I am not frustrated. I've been having a ball exposing the stupidity of the assertion that the Baptists originated with John Smyth. As for the "Trail of Blood" I give it very little credibility and I do not believe that Baptist successionism can be verified. What I have shown is that the John Smyth theory is a crock and that the Baptists and Anabaptists were one and the same people. You can quote as many men as you wish who buy into this crock and it will still be a crock.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus effort

Since I bring no track record of success with the WP:Consensus process, it's presumptuous for me to suggest an approach. However, I don't think any of us want the article to be seen as The Great Baptist Origins Controversy and lose whatever respect they have for the denomination, or worse yet, see it as a bad reflection on our Leader and Example. So this is my feeble effort.

Before further editing, it would be helpful to get some concrete opinions together with more WP:Reliable Sources on disputed points such as the following. If this works, I will be glad to incorporate consensual views into revised text.

Thanks to Ἀλήθεια for providing the above reliable source info. and for the first specific recommendation. And to Novaseminary for commenting.

Here are some issues raised on the article's Talk page. There may be others:

1. Should the phrasing "One view of Baptists' origins postulates that..." be eradicated from this article" and replaced with the 1609 start date, along with 17th century Separatists (Puritans who abandoned efforts at internal reform):

• A "YES" based on this user's comments in the previous Talk topic: Ἀλήθεια
• A "YES" based on this user's comments in the previous Talk topic:Novaseminary

2. Did John Smyth organize the first Baptist church in 1609 with the underlying motive being to leave Puritan Separatism?

• According to Shurden, Weaver and Briggs, YES. Afaprof01 (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe not, given one of the edits that happened in the last week that seemed to document one in the 16th century. However, it is widely acknowledged in multiple reliable sources that the Baptist denomination originated from Smyth's effort to organize a church of baptized believers in 1609. Ἀλήθεια 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

2. Has successionism been the "traditional" view?

3. Is Baptist successionism based on the Bible, NOT on Baptist history?

Successionism is based on bad historical research, and tries to position itself as based on the Bible, but I think when you get down to brass tacks, many denominations would try to position themselves as the one true expression of the New Testament church. Ἀλήθεια 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Did Anabaptists pre-date the Reformation?

5. Are Baptists evangelicals?

It seems some are and some aren't in the more narrow uses of the term. In the very broadest sense of the term (and I suspect that article has its definitional problems!), I suspect most Baptists are. Before putting it back, though, I think we need a good source that synthesizes the idea and is clear on the definition of evangelical that it employs. Novaseminary (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Prior to the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy? Yes. However, just like all major denominational families, there are some that would be considered mainline, and others that would be considered evangelical. This is probably less true of Baptists than other protestant denominations, but true nonetheless. Ἀλήθεια 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

6. Are Baptists Protestant Christians?

• Shurden, Weaver and Briggs say YES. If Baptists came out of Separatists, and Separates are Protestants, then Baptists are Protestants. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• That's a loaded question. Is the Baptist denomination a product of the Protestant Reformation? Yes.

7. Do Baptists subscribe to Congregational polity? If not, what should it be called?

• Shurden and Weaver say YES. Not covered in Briggs. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Again, this depends on your definitions. If we say that Congregational polity is simply that the congregation is free of external control from the state or a higher ecclesiastical power, then yes. If we go further and say that all decisions are in the hands of the congregation, then I'd have to lean toward "historically maybe", but many individual churches have abandoned that approach and given leadership to elders within the church (this may be mostly in the reformed Baptist stream). Ἀλήθεια 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the above list.

Thank you. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Shurden

There were some broken refs pointing to a named ref of "Shurden." I just fixed the error by naming the first full Shurden ref as "Shurden." But then I realized there is more than one Shurden ref, so I named the first with a full ref as "Shurden1" and the second as "Shurden2." This rebroke the "Shurden" refs, but I'm not sure which Shurden cite they are pointing to, so I will leave them broken for somebody to change them to Shurden1 or Shurden2. Novaseminary (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Have completely re-worked /*Origins*/. Please provide any suggestions or objections. Thanks, Afaprof01 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1. When the Baptists said they were falsely called Anabaptists they were asserting that they did not rebaptize, not distinguishing themselves from the the Anabaptists. There are numerous historical references to the Anabaptists in England throughout the 16th century. These people did not disappear when John Smyth came on the scene. They were the people who eventually became known as Baptists. Here is a quote from a prominent Baptist who lived in the 17th century as to the origin of the English Baptists. I quote it as it stands in John T. Christian's History with his comments. It is taken from volume one chapter 17. I have never seen any attempt to refute it. I challenge you to deal with it.

"Fortunately it is not necessary to turn to a confused and misleading manuscript for an account of the organization of the Particular Baptist Churches. Hanserd Knollys was one of the principal actors of those times, and he gives an account of their organization. He rejected infant baptism in 1631 (John Lewis, Appendix to the History of the Anabaptists. Rawlinson MSS. CCCCIX, 62), and probably became a Baptist in the same year (Kiffin, Life and Death of Hanserd Knollys, 47. London, 1812). He tells in simple language (A Moderate Answer unto Dr. Baswick's Book. London, 1645), the story of the planting of these churches in the days of persecution before 1641. He relates:

I shall now take the liberty to declare, what I know by mine own experience to be the practice of some Churches of God in this City. That so far both the Dr. and the Reader may judge how near the saints who walk in the fellowship of the Gospell, do come to their practice, to those Apostolicall rules and practice propounded by the Dr. as God's method in gathering churches, and admitting Members. I say that I know by mine own experience (having walked with them), that they were thus gathered; viz. Some godly and learned men of approved gifts and abilities for the Ministry, being driven out of the Countries where they lived by the persecution of the Prelates, came to sojourn in this great City, and preached the word of God both publicly and from house to house, and daily in the Temple, and in every house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ; and some of them having dwelt in their own hired houses, and received all that came unto them, preached the Kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ. And when many sinners were converted by the preaching of the Gospel, some of them believers consorted with them, and of professors a great many, and of the chief women not a few. And the condition which those Preachers, both publicly and privately propounded to the people, unto whom they preached, upon which they were to be admitted into the Church was by Faith, Repentance, and Baptism, and none other. And whosoever (poor as well as rich, bond as well as free, servants as well as Masters), did make a profession of their Faith in Jesus Christ, and would be baptized with water, in the Name of the Father, Sonne. and Holy Spirit, were admitted Members of the Church: but such as did not believe, and would not be baptized, they would not admit into Church communion. This hath been the practice of some Churches of God in this City, without urging or making any particular covenant with Members upon admittance, which I desire may be examined by the Scripture cited in the Margent, and when compared with the Doctor's three conclusions from the same Scriptures, whereby it may appear to the judicious Reader, how near the Churches some of them come to the practice of the Apostles rules, and practice of the primitive churches, both in gathering and admitting members."

2. To argue that the Baptists weren't Anabaptists because they held some differing doctrinal views is totally fallacious. That is like saying that because the Alliance of Baptists condone sexual deviance that they were not descended from the Baptists. The fact is, churches change doctrinal views quite frequently.

3. The reference to Bruce Gourley asserting that some people are biased is utterly ridiculous. The fact is, all of us are biased, including Mr. Gourley and every one of you who are bent on making your POV the truth. So instead of seeing how many names you can come up with who have accepted the revisionist views and claiming moral superiority for yourselves, why not deal with facts?Mark Osgatharp (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Question of scholarship

To be sure, there were some scholars of old who held to other views, but can anyone point to a contemporary credible reliable source for a 21st century scholar who holds this view? HokieRNB 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, no one can point to a "credible" source because if anyone points to someone who agrees with the old position on Baptists origins you will declare them to be not credible.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we don't have to mince words, let's talk in terms of WP guidelines... how about a reliable source (published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses)? HokieRNB 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it doesn't matter what witnesses I provide, you will declare them not credible and unreliable and not well regarded. Of course, liberals are the only people who are unbiased, scholarly, credible, reliable and well regarded! LOL! I see that you aren't really interested in getting to the truth of the matter, you are just, in Mr. Gourley's words, "bent on proving that their particular view of Baptist history is the one and only true understanding of Baptist history."Mark Osgatharp (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

So much for WP:CIVILITY Mr Osgatharp. Your comments have become arrogant and are an affront to common courtesy. This is not a place for personal insults, and yours have already gotten old, and quite offensive. I believe several editors on this article have gone out of our way to be courteous and respectful of you, even while disagreeing with some of your claims and sources. Your sarcasm doesn't speak well either for you or for your POV, or even worse for what you claim to stand for. If you want to risk a block or harsher admin action, then continue being obnoxious and disruptive. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he is not complying with the warning NJA gave him, I have again reported User talk:Mark Osgatharp to the Edit War notice board. I think it may be time to block this user. I also think Afaprof01, RNB, and Ἀλήθεια have done a great job trying to explain things to him an to achieve consensus. I wish they did not have to direct their good efforts to this. Novaseminary (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Civility to you fellows means "shut up while we explain things to you" and "consensus" means "get our corporate permission before you say anything." I remind your little anonymous tag team that I've said everything I said under my real name. You may shut me out of this article but I will still have my name, the truth, and my self-respect. In the mean time, I will continue to edit as I see fit in order to present a fair and balanced and above all truthful presentation of who Baptists are.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Afaprof01 came even close to a tone as caustic as you imply he did and as you have employed. Per WP:CIVIL, just be polite and show respect. We've tried to do it to you (go back and look at how politely I tried to engage you in November on you talk page). Please show others the same courtesy. Novaseminary (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume this means the answer to my original question is no. HokieRNB 00:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hokie, You are correct, I cannot cite any 21st century scholar who holds to the successionist view. I note that in addition to reliable, peer-reviewed, reputable and published by a well-regarded academic press, you have now added the criterion that any source I cite must have been published within the past 10 years.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, any source must meet WP:RS (you may want to pay special attention to Wikipedia:RS#Academic_consensus). If you think a source that others have rejected is in fact a RS, post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you have possibly reliable sources, feel free to post them here first (if you see fit) or go straight to the notice bord. But railing against guidance an editor gives here won't likely bring other editors to your side. Hokie just noted that you have not put forward any source by any reputable scholar who has been alive this past decade (whether they published it recently or not). Put another way, do any recently living scholars agree with you and, if so, have they written it down for you to cite? If not, your position cannot be the current academic consensus. So long as you are the only proponent of your positions, you won't reach consensus and edits made along those lines will get you blocked again. We can argue about the wikipedia procedure and guidelines all you want, or we could get down to brass tacks and talk about possible sources and article language. Novaseminary (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary, Since I don't claim that the successionist position is the "current academic conesensus" your criticism is moot. In fact, I have consistently acknowledged that the current academic consensus is in favor of the 17th century origins theory. Furthermore, I have not argued against any of wikipedia's procedure. I have only argued against the much vaunted boast that the only reliable scholars are those who subscribe to the modernistic revisionist theory of Baptist origins.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just thinking, if no scholars that people pay attention to today currently hold this view, then shouldn't it disappear from an encyclopedia eventually, or at least be sufficiently marginalized so as not to confuse readers? I mean, there could be a line or two saying that in the past, people once held this view, but today it has been largely discredited. I think we should review this in light of WP:FRINGE. HokieRNB 21:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Will This Be OK With You Fellers

Here is a sentence I have constructed to open the origins section.

"While most modern scholars agree that the denomination traces its origin to the 17th century via the English Separatists, most of the older Baptist scholars saw the Baptists as in some way related to the pre-17th century Anabaptists."

Will this pass board approval? If not, please point out wherein it is in error.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to a reliable source to support the assertion that "most of the older Baptist scholars saw the Baptists as in some way related to the pre-17th century Anabaptists"? Novaseminary (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This is certainly a big improvement in approach, although the "board" sounds like more sarcasm. There are scholarly quotations in the article to support saying "most modern scholars" but not the equivalent source validity for "most of the older." I suggest something like "some earlier scholars...." if properly sourced. "Older" implies their age (true, but not the issue here). Thank you, M.O. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is no change in approach because it is essentially the same thing the article said several weeks ago before it was edited to assert that the 17th century view is the only credible view.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts about the Anabaptist influence were proffered in an earlier round of discussion here, aptly summarized by Yozzer66: "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." I think that's probably a more accurate way to characterize the historical roots of the denomination. Also of note is that Mark Osgatharp has been the lone voice arguing for these changes in at least one other discussion, with anywhere from 2 to half a dozen editors arguing for the majority viewpoint to take precedence. Let's not let his tirades derail our efforts. There are plenty of level-headed editors around to revert non-constructive edits. HokieRNB 01:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of changing this section to reflect Yozzer66's summary as noted by Hokie. Novaseminary (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Four views of origins

I'm not suggesting these should be all worked into the article, but because there is apparently a lack of clarity in the current version, here is what Gourley suggests as the the views on origins:

1. English Separatists (influenced by Anabaptists)
2. Anabaptists (influenced by English Separatists)
3. Perpetuity: "Baptist faith and practice has existed since the time of Christ"
4. Successionism: "Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ"

Ἀλήθεια 22:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between perpetuity and successionism is really a theological distinction and insofar as it touches on Baptist historical origins is very minute. Successionism embraces perpetuity but perpetuity does not necessarily endorse successionsism. Not that I think all this needs to be discussed in the article, it just seems irrelevant and awkward to me to state that Gourley says there are four main views and then only spell out three of them.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

westboro baptist church, criticisms, controversies and Baptist Violence

Why isn't there a section about the Westboro Baptist Church on this page? Why isn't there a "Criticisms and Controversies" section either? Why isn't there a list of violent acts perpetrated by them against people of other beliefs, religions and races? Shouldn't there be? Or should the subject have its own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.64.202 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a section about the Westboro Baptist Church because they are not typical of any segment of the Baptists. There is an individual article about Westboro on Wikipedia. You can read it here. Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple thoughts!!!!

The name Baptist did not originate until the 16th or the 17th century this is true, however the majority of Baptist would teach that our name is not important. Our name was given to us by those that opposed us. The important issue is that our church was started by Jesus Christ himself. I would not want to believe anything that was started by a man: I.E. Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Constantine. I would only want to put faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who claimed that His Church would never fail and that he will preserve his truth throughout every generation. The name baptist is just a meager title that we carry, the truths of the Bible is what every Baptist will cling to. "MY BIBLE BE'S BIGGER THAN MY BAPTIST BE'S" That's how you could put it. My second dispute of this article would be that no Baptist should teach or believe that we are a Protestant church. It would be a huge slap in anyone's face to say that, my church came from a false church that is run by Satan. The Baptist beliefs and teachings came way before the Martin Luther and centuries before the Catholic church began their bloody persecution on our Church. The Baptist Church in name was not around, but the true followers of Christ were. They had many different names and at times were hiding from the bloody Catholic's, but God has kept His word and His church has gone through much and still stand in 2010. Marvin Frazier---- Feb. 10th 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.228.160 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Marvin, you will find that Wikipedia is not about the truth - it is about how which point of view can find the most "scholars" who agree with it. Sad, but true.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. Original research is about truth. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal or personal website. Whether this is sad or not is irrelevant here; it is the case. Novaseminary (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Novaseminary, Isn't that what I just said?Mark Osgatharp (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark Osgatharp, please do not come in and snipe content without discussion. When you remove referenced statements the way that you did, you often break linked references in the rest of the article. Consensus has been repeatedly demonstrated on this point. HokieRNB 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hokie, Consensus has been demonstrated on which point? On how many views of Baptist origins Bruce Gourley thinks there are? Frankly, I don't see the reasoning for even mentioning Gourley, but if you say that he says there are four views it seems to me you ought to mention all four of them or leave his POV out altogether. The section on the Separatist view of origins already states that it is the view held by the majority of scholars. So what is your point in saying it 14 different ways. Why don't you just go ahead and add "The only view which any reasonable Baptist can possible hold is that Baptists originated with John Smyth and anyone who says different is a wanton ignoramus"?Mark Osgatharp (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus that the article should not reflect undue weight on minority views which do not have modern scholarly support. To change the statement to read "There are several views of Baptist origins" is a tacit endorsement of parity among these views, which is far from accurate. I agree it is fair to mention all four views in a summary way, but the history section should not dwell on the ones that have been largely dismissed by the academic community. HokieRNB 02:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hokie, By whose academic community? Yours? Whether you like it or not, there are huge numbers of Baptists who reject the Separatist theory. They just don't happen to been in charge of your "academic community" so they don't get the publicity. And they aren't compelled to continue proliferating books to promote a position that has already been abundantly established by credible records. An encylopedia article should not be an platform to flaunt how many views of Baptist origins Bruce Gourley thinks there are. It should be a source for people to learn about what they will encounter as a "Baptist" in the real world. With that understanding, it is quite fair to assert that the majority of scholars hold to the Separatist view - which is probably correct - but it is also needful to give a fair representation of the successionist view because it is still a widely held view and because it has played such a dominant role in Baptist history. Even if successionism is a total farce - which I'm sure you think it is - it has still played a huge role in the molding of the Baptist mindset and therefore familiarity with it is essential to an understanding of Baptist heritage.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hokie, and on a personal note - and I know this doesn't have any bearing on the Wikipedia article because we've established and know that it isn't about truth, so spare me the lecture - when judgment day comes things won't be judged by "majority rule". It will be judged by God's rule. Oh, what a day that will be! I'm gonna laugh in your face when the Lord opens His history books and shows you and all your "academic community" the trail of blood all the way from Galilee to end of the world! Even so come Lord Jesus!Mark Osgatharp (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, legal threats are not permitted on Wikipedia, and threats of eternal damnation less so. If you write things like that here again you will be blocked from editing. You might also like to consider whether your plan to laugh at people as they are condemned is in keeping with the attitude expected of a Christian. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Clayworth - "legal threats"? "Threats of eternal damnation?" LOL! Where did you get that. All I said is that I will laugh when the Lord shows the truth of the matter, which He will and which I will. I was just doing a little preaching, to which you apparently have no qualm since you preached at me about "attitude expected of a Christian." Well FYI, Christians are expected to rejoice in the truth - and that I will do, both now and in the judgment.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Christians are supposed to rejoice in the truth, not revel in the sadistic thoughts of enternal torment of others. Aren't we supposed to express sorrow that people will go to hell? Satan's the one rejoicing about people going to hell, not us. Though ultimately, whether you, as a Christian, are required by your faith to be nice to others or not, you ARE, as a wikipedian, required to be respectful of others. Talking about how you will laugh as people burn is anything BUT nice and is not in the least bit going to help you get what you want put into the article. If anything, that attitude will prevent your desired changes from going in even if wiki policy says they should. If you want this article to reflect your views, you MUST follow the rules of wikipedia to get it that way.

I have not participated in this discussion, but I did just finish reading through the whole thing. You are not even trying to abide by policy around here. You make claim after claim after claim, but never provide a source that wikipedia policy would ever accept, and when your sources are not accepted, you complain that they are just trying to keep the article pov. Is it not also possible that the sources you continue to provide actually ARE unacceptable? Please, carefully read WP:RS and it's related policies. They are really quite clear on what is and what is not acceptable as a source. When told to find a concensus before editing, you come to the page, make one or two posts, and then immediately start editing again. It often takes days, or even weeks for editors to come to a consensus. Give it time.

I have seen editors like you come through wikipedia and edit on various articles time and time again and the same thing happens every time - they edit and argue just as you have been, accuse everyone else of being pov while upholding themselves as the lone neutral, fair, and balanced party, and inevitably get indefinitely banned for not following policy. This is not a threat, as I have no power myself to block you, but I 100% guarantee that you are already teetering on the edge of a permanent block from editing. If you do not want that to happen, you need to immediately change your tune.Farsight001 (talk) 06:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To his credit, Mark Osgatharp does not appear to suggest he will be laughing at the Great White Throne Judgment, but rather at the Judgment Seat of Christ. He does not have eternal damnation in mind, but rather a time when God will reward the faithful. However, I must admit that I doubt that God's primary concern on that day will be whether Wikipedia articles reflect accurate historical facts. In the Bible that I read, He seems infinitely more concerned about people's hearts, and particularly about their love for each other. After all, isn't love supposed to be the defining characteristic of a Christian (John 13:35)? HokieRNB 06:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, your prior post asked "whose academic community?" I think that answer is reflected in the sources. They are people who have had their research vetted and have published their findings in peer-reviewed journals and books. HokieRNB 06:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 You are just as goofy as Clayworth. I didn't say a word about "enternal (sic) torment" or burning in hell. I said I will laugh when the Lord makes the truth of this matter known. I have tried to abide by policy and I have sourced my references. The only problem is that some people around here think no one but themselves and their cronies are capable of producing a credible reference, because if it disagrees with them it is by definition not credible. So far as your warning about me being blocked from editing, what difference does it make if every edit I make is going to be declared not credible by the....ahem...."scholarly consensus" around here? One thing you got right, I've not made much attempt to have a discussion with these guys because it would be a pointless effort on my part.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You didn't use the word eternal torment, no. But would you be laughing at a fellow heaven-bound Christian? No. You would be rejoicing WITH them. Don't insult my intelligence. We both know exactly what you meant, so cut the crap. I only came here as an uninvolved editor wanting to help make it clear to you what you have to do to be an effective editor and you immediately turn around and insult me and continue to speak exactly as you have been. You have not, in fact, provided sources that qualify as usable on wikipedia. I suggest again that you look up the relevant policies to understand exactly why. There is no one here calling something not credible simply because it disagrees with them. That is in your head. "scholarly consensus" does not refer to any editors here, but rather to those with formal educations in the field in question and the respect of their peers. When they talk about scholarly consensus, they are talking about historians. Your problem is ultimately with the policies and rules of wikipedia and if you want those changed, you don't need to be talking about it here. Comments on a talk page not directed toward the improvement of the relevant article can, also by policy, simply be deleted. So play the game or get off the field.Farsight001 (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 So now, addition to putting words in my mouth, you are accusing me of lying - and then you presume to be on high moral ground. For the record, I understand perfectly well what "scholarly consensus" means, both in Wikipedia policy as well as the minds of the editors who think no one but those who agrees with them in their Johnny-Come-Lately opinions could possibly be a scholar. I have, in fact, provided many references which are currently incorporated in the article, so your accusation on that count is totally unfounded. By the way, my name is Mark Osgatharp, nice to "meet" you.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Critism?

I couldn't figure out how to edit or report that there has been a troll in this section, so i just put it here. The whole section under the title Critism, is heavily biased and kind of insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TitkenToft (talk • contribs) 08:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Ἀλήθεια took care of it. Novaseminary (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Our article starts: "A Baptist is a Christian who subscribes to a theology of believer's baptism [...] " and then " The term Baptist is also used as an adjective to describe a church, organization, or other group comprising Baptists [...]". However the entire rest of the article, and almost all of this talk pages, goes on to talk about the second defintion, that of a denomination. In my experience the second definition is almost always the one used. If you ask most Mennonites, Pentecostals etc (who adhere to believer's baptism) "are you a baptist" most of them will answer "no". I think the defintion in the article should be changed to acknowledge that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead for this aritcle has always been tough to write. Is your objection that the first sentence seems to be categorical in stating that anyone holidng those beliefs is a capital-B Baptist? I think you might be on to something. Would changing it to something like this (but more elegant) knock out your concerns? "A Baptist is a Christian who, among other distinctives discussed in this article, subscribes to a theology [...] and self-identifies as a Baptist." We could also collapse the person vs. the group distinction, but that gets tricky, and seems to be secondary to what I think is your primary concern. Novaseminary (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

My concern is mainly with the prioritisation. I would suggest something like:

"The term Baptist describes a number of Christian churches, denominations and groups who subscribe to a theology of believer's baptism by immersion. It also refers to a members of such an organisation, or more generally to any Christian who subscribes to believer's baptism. Baptist groups also usually believe in salvation through faith along; the supreme authority of the Bible; local church autonomy; and disavowal of authoritative creeds. "

Essentially it is putting the most common definition (church group or its members) up front and the secondary definition (subscriber to believer's baptism) second. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is not primarily about the term "Baptist", but rather about "Baptistism". The lead should not start out "The term Baptist describes..." It should start out "A Baptist is..." or "A Baptist church is..." without referring to the term. Otherwise, properly you would have to say "The term Baptist is a word..." HokieRNB 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if you think the new lead clarifies this issue for you. HokieRNB 06:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I really like the new lead. It is appropriately less categorical and no longer implies that if one believes a few things they must consider themselves to be a Baptist, and it puts the focus on the groups without losing the fact that individuals are Baptists, too. My only concern would be the reference to fundamentalism. I'm not sure I would include it with evangelicalism (which I am fine with, though could probably use a cite later in the article for support) as something with which Baptists often associate, especially in the lead. Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the new lead. And also for what it's worth, "fundamentalist Baptists" far outnumber any other brand of fundamentalist Christians, and while they do not outnumber the evangelicals (in fact many would consider themselves evangelical), there are more "fundamentalist Baptists" than many other single groups of Baptists, such as "Reformed Baptists", "mainline Baptists". What I think is lacking from this article is any discussion around the distinction between "general Baptist" and "particular Baptist". To me, this would be more valuable in the lead than the distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist. Ἀλήθεια 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am going to tweak the fundamentalist language in the lead just a bit. I like having some reference, at least to evangelicals, because even the various types of Baptists may fall into the evangelical or fundamentalist camps. And it is located in the lead adjacent to the general Protestant characterization so it is not necesarily to name the types of Baptists, but to place Baptists within Christianity. Novaseminary (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand what was wrong with my edits. Sola fide and sola scriptura are hardly "jargon", plus,as links, they are easy to look up if, on very rare occasion, someone doesn't know what they mean. I changed it anyway because "salvation through faith" is not descriptive enough. First of all, all Christians believe that salvation is at least, in part, through faith. Hence believing in salvation through faith is in no way an identifying mark for Baptists. Baptists, last I checked, believe in salvation by faith ALONE. Alone is the key word here and a key aspect of sola fide. If its not faith alone, its not sola fide, and so its not what the lede should link to. Likewise, the phrase "authority of the bible" is equally ambigous. All Christians believe in the authority of the bible. What makes Baptists somewhat unique is that it is their only authority, but this, too, is not what the lede says.Farsight001 (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not that your edits were wrong in the sense that I thought they introduced anything inaccurate. I would be fine with saying "faith alone" and Bible as "supreme" or "primary authority." The Latin phrases, though, seem to me to be jargon if for no other reason than they are Latin; they are at the very least specialized terminology. Per WP:LEAD, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction." Imagine what a person who knows little to nothing about any of these concepts would take away from various Latin phrases. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be accesable. That is, the article should be written for people who don't already know about the topic. If you want to use the Latin phrases, feel free when going into further detail in the body of the article. As is, there is a lot in just a few short sentences (hence the wikilinking, which point to the same articles anyway). Novaseminary (talk) 06:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever met a person, online or in person, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything else, that didn't know what sola fide and sola scriptura meant. Though I don't necessarily prefer those exact terms, we do also need the lead to be accurate (which I think outweighs the preference against jargon), and as it stands, it is certainly not accurate.Farsight001 (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You might consider meeting some new people. There are plenty of people... religious and otherwise... who have never heard of the five solas, let alone be able to translate them from Latin without the wikilink. I agree that in the lead paragraph they should be piped and use common English terms. HokieRNB 04:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Change article title to Baptists?

Per the new lead and the fact that this really does deal with groups, should we swap and make Baptists the article with Baptist as the redirect? So as not to lose edit history, we could have the current redirect at Baptists quick deleted to make way for the move.Novaseminary (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Nova. I concur with your proposal to change the article to "Baptists" (plural). "Methodist" and "Presbyterian" (both singular) redirect to the term + "ism," but the "-ism" precedence is certainly inappropriate for Baptist. I like the new lead. Thanks for your dedicated pursuit. I suggest the WP:Move route after more time for comments; backup approach would be WP:RM. But then you already know this. :-) ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Unless there is dissent we need to discuss, let's give it another week or so since it is a big move (in the sense of changing a well-established article's name, if not in letters changed!). As for the details, the Baptists redirect history isn't just one line, so I don't think the clean and easy WP:MOR will work. Would we want to go with WP:SWAP, or is there another section of WP:Move that would be better? Assuming there is no dissent here (and enough agreement), I wouldn't expect an uncontroversial WP:RM to take too long, but it'd be nice to avoid it. And I agree about the lead, thanks to HokieRNB for doing the bulk of the work! Novaseminary (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, HokieRNB. Didn't mean to leave you out. I hadn't read the Talk history carefully. Thanks to both of you for sharing your wisdom here. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to propose the redirect at Baptists be speedy deleted to make way for the move. If it is accepted, either the admin or I will move this page there. If this is rejected, I will post it to WP:RM. Of course, if anybody objects, please speak up ASAP! Novaseminary (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I have done the move. I deleted and restored the redir page, since an older version of this article was in the history. The histories are now merged. I also moved the talk page and its archives, and fixed the various redirects that point here. DES ^(talk) 05:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you! Novaseminary (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Could you please change the line "Baptist churches are regarded as falling within the family of Protestantism..." to read "Baptist churches are regarded by some as falling within the family of Protestantism..." and add that many Baptists themselves believe the religion was not part of the reformation because they were not part of the catholic church to begin with.

This may sound corny to some of you but my Grandmother (1903-1987) may not have been infallible but would get upset every time she heard someone call her a protestant. I have found a website that details many of the things she used to tell me. This site has citations scattered throughout the text.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/why_baptists_are_not_protestants.htm Thanks, Stephenopolus (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

First, please add new sections to the bottom of the article. That is where they belong. Second, jesus-is-savior is not a reputable source for anything - and I really do mean anything. I wouldn't even trust it to tell me what the weather is. I don't know where you get the idea that it has many citations, but I just looked at the article you linked and it has exactly zero citations, like everything else on that website. It is unfortunate that you grandmother would not like being called Protestant, but that does not change the fact that she, like all Baptists, are so according to a rather well mapped out history of Baptists. Baptists can believe they aren't derived from the Catholic Church all they want, but we don't put those fringe ideas here.Farsight001 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Missions crisis

There's no description of what the missions crisis was or link to a main page with more details. Can someone provide more information, please? Leadwind (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

lede

Someone deleted information about the origins of the Baptists from the lede. The lede should summarize the topic, so this information should be included. See WP:lede. Leadwind (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that edit. Per my edit history the first time: "These two new sentences may be too difficult to include without Wikipedia:LEAD#Relative_emphasis problems, at least without more discussion." I am sympathetic to what you are trying to do, but these two sentences summarize what has been a contentious issue in this article. Summarizing the origins issue in two sentences is almost certainly going to give the perpetuity view more coverage than justified. And I'm not sure that one needs to address this to have an overview of who Baptists are. Novaseminary (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede should summarize the article. This material is in the article and should be in the lede. As it stands, the lede gives more prominence to the contemporary, consensus view and less to the perpetuity view. If you want to leave the perpetuity view out of the lede since it's apparently outdated, that's fine, but we shouldn't shy away from describing current scholarship in the lede. You're welcome to adjust the information, but "where the Baptists come from" is certainly relevant to the topic and belongs in the article and in the lede. Leadwind (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Several editors have worked on the lead at various points in time (see the discussions above). Please do not reinsert the language again until consensus is reached here. I have already stated why I think the language is problematic. If you have alternative language that addresses the concern, feel free to propose it here. Or, try to convince others of the merits of your existng recommendation. Novaseminary (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you want to describe Baptist origins in the lede? Which policy states that the burden is on the editor who wants to include information? I think the guideline is: when consensus can't be reached, it's better to include information than exclude it. I'm trying to improve the lede. Are you? If so, suggest wording that covers the topic. Leadwind (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to your recent edit, but I do hope it doesn't set-off an edit war. As for the burden, see WP:BURDEN. There is certainly no default in favor of adding material absent consensus. And for other edits to this article especially, I would suggest following WP:BRD to implement WP:CONS rather than repeatedly adding text again without first trying for consensus here on the talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't object to my recent edit, why did you delete it? As for WP:BURDEN, the issue there is whether the information can be cited to a reliable source. This information is cited to a reliable source, which is what the editor who wants to include the information needs to show. As far as WP:BURDEN is concerned, I've satisfied the burden of proof. You delete the information anyway. If you don't object to my last edit, please restore it. Leadwind (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete the edit noted above that I do not ahve a problem with, I deleted the one after that which you started another discussion on below. Novaseminary (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

modernism

Not this material has been deleted from the lead.

Some Baptist associations, such as the Northern Baptist Convention, have embraced Modernism, while others, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, have retained more conservative views.

The lead is supposed to summarize the topic so well that it could stand alone. Why was this material deleted? Leadwind (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted this material because it is too U.S.-focused. More importantly (but related), it lacks context--as I noted in my edit history. It is totally unclear what you mean by Modernism: would a reader unfamiliar with theology have clue what you are talking about? The lead already mentions the wide diversity of beliefs, etc., which is the point and the best summary. I do not think this adds anything but to the word count. Novaseminary (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The solution to there being too much US material in the lead is to add material from outside the US. That way the lead has more information instead of less. As for being too US centric, the vast majority of Baptists are in the US. And the Southern Baptist Convention in the US is the largest Baptist convention. Information about the SBC has a place in any summary of Baptist denomination. Maybe there's some reason you don't want the topic of Modernism raised? If so, let us know. Leadwind (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether Modernism (or Conservatism, Liberalism, or Left-handed-ism) should be raised. I do care that it is explained (the lead is not to tease) and placed into NPOV context in summary form in the lead--and in greater detail in the body. And specifically in the lead, it needs to reflect the same relative importance as in the rest of the article, which per WP:UNDUE must reflect the same relative importance given the sub-topic in reality.

As for the U.S.-centeredness, had you proposed the more balanced text here first, I would have indicated that the more world-wide focused text is A-Ok in my book --for what it is worth. As I tried to explain before, my problem with your initial edits was not the accuracy of any particular fact, but the fact that they did not represent the rest of the article in equal proportion. You could paste the entirety of the Canadian Baptists of Western Canada article here (assuming, counterfactually, that it is up to WP FA status) and it would meet most WP policies and be about Baptists, but it would grossly misrepresent the relative importance of that group. Of course, what you added was not that contrary to WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE; I note this just to highlight the kind of concern I had (if not the degree).

I would note again, though, that we could have avoided all but the first revert if you had followed WP:BRD which can be especially useful on an article like this. Then, had somebody else come in and started reverting against the consensus developed here, you would have had me as a defender.

Thanks for your efforts on the article.

Novaseminary (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, what Novaseminary means by "consensus" is for you to get his, Hokie's and Alfapro's corporate permission before you edit. LOL!Mark Osgatharp (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

EBO's Baptist article is a great place for any editor to look for solid information about Baptists. Any editor who wants to improve this page can follow the link and start using the EBO article as a source for content. Leadwind (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

EBO, and any other mainstream encyclopedia, is going to be a solid place to look for many topics that WP covers, and this is no exception. But I deleted it as an EL in the article because it violates WP:ELNO #1. That EBO article does not contain any resource beyond what this article would contain if this article were a FA (maybe someday!). Novaseminary (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, would you be so helpful as to start using the EBO article as a source for information to be added here? This article could really use it. Leadwind (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary source needed

My request for ^{[by whom?]} was simply undone without a proper explanation:

Baptists are considered[by whom?] the largest communion of Protestants,

please provide a secondary source, and mention it! The source provided for that sentence is a Baptist count and so can be considered not being WP:NPOV. A hint: www.adherents.com! Or otherwise I'll have to fix that sentence myself, but not exactly now! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anabaptist vs Baptist

It is true, as reflected in McBeth's quote, that the Baptists denied the "Anabaptist" epithet. It is not true that they distinguished themselves from the people who were called Anabaptist. Rather, they denied that they re-baptized anyone and therefore considered the term "Anabaptist" as slander against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Osgatharp (talk • contribs) 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence. I think the paragraph works fine without it, but I'm not opposed to adding more context there, either. Novaseminary (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In America

I think there should be some mention of persecution of Baptists in Massachusetts Bay Colony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.79.239 (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Baptists recognize two ministerial offices, pastor-elders and deacons, but not bishops.

Dear All

The above headline is taken from the Wikipedia summation of Baptist beliefs and practice. Whilst I understand that some Baptist churches take this position, this viewpoint is not shared by all Baptists.

I for example, am an Elder in a Baptist assembly, and believe there are only 2 ministerial offices ... Elder and Deacon (as opposed to Pastor-Elder and Deacon.)

A Pastor is a term that has similar characteristics to an Evangelist. For example, no-one would ever think of describing the role of an Evangelist as an "office." An Evangelist is a Believer who has been equipped by God to reach out to the unsaved with the glorious message of the Gospel. In similar terms, the role of a Pastor/Pastor-Teacher should not be described as an "office" either, given that a Pastor/Pastor-Teacher is a Believer who has been equipped by God to minister (in particular) to the Saints.

Neither Evangelist nor Pastor/Pastor-Teacher are automatically linked to the Eldership of a local assembly of Believers in Scripture. Hence the expresseion "Pastor-Elder" is erroneous.

To describe Elders as only "Pastor-Elders" as the article does, is to infer a layer of "Clericalism" which is not to be found in Scripture.

To bring balance to the article, I would like to request that this point of view be reflected therein.

DJ Wilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.154.219 (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

With each Baptist church being autonomous, there is no "standard" title for the senior leader. However, traditionally the majority of Baptists have used the names of only two offices: "pastor" and "deacon." Where the term "elder" is employed, it is more commonly used in place of "deacon" among Baptists, but this is not the norm. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Baptists have traditionally seen the office of elder and deacon as the only two ordained offices and this understanding has distinguished them from denominations with a presbyterial or episcopal government. The term "elder" has traditionally been used quite frequently by Baptists (as synonymous with the office of "pastor") though it is not as common to hear it today as in the past. I've never heard a Baptist deacon referred to by the term elder. The Scriptures very plainly make the office of pastor, elder and overseer (bishop) one and the same office and equally as plain set forth a plurality of the office in the local church.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Baptist but I did find this article interesting: More Baptist pastors adopt bishop title. Seems to be a trend among African-American Baptists. Even though its not what Baptist have historically believed, the variety of viewpoints isn't surprising considering the congregational nature of Baptist churches. Ltwin (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Something missing?

The language "an unorthodox optimistic view of human nature" seems to require "and had" in front of it. Richard Ong (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

thsi doesnt seem right

but i'm no expert. "They generally ... disavow authoritative creeds" shouldn't that be they avow authorative creeds?· Lygophile has spoken 22:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's correct. Whereas other denominations and movements rely heavily on documents such as the Apostle's Creed, Baptists are known for their reliance only on the Bible as the final rule of faith and doctrine. Thus, they disavow authoritative creeds. HokieRNB 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ah, right, i see. thanks! *resists arguing the double-talk of that custom*· Lygophile has spoken 02:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)