Talk:Baptists/Archive 6

regarding the addition of John T. Christian

It seems John T. Christian is acknowledged as a historian by third party sources. He was professor of church history at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. So, barring any credible evidence submitted to the contrary, it would seem admissible to include his views in this article. I would like to go on record as noting that I don't agree with his views. However, I see no good reason why he isn't notable enough for inclusion. Ἀλήθεια 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable sources? I have found he's a church historian, but I think that's a bit different than a historian on subjects related to religion or Baptists. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

What third party sources acknowledge him as a historian? You have not even named them. I know of no modern day historian that gives him a second thought or even an afterthought. Furthermore, his education was not in history, but rather theology and he lived over 70 years ago. History knows far more now. A historian with more up to date information would certainly be preferable to a non-historian with an over 70 year old education. I really do suggest someone takes this to the reliable source noticeboard and asks them.

Also, I did not mention it before, but the way the additions were worded were extremely pov, given as absolute statements of fact when the vast VAST majority of modern historians would disagree with his position vehemently. If he really is an RS, then the addition definitely needs rewording.

As for being notable, for one, that is not the only criteria for inclusion. Also, he is, IMO, not really notable enough anyway. Surely a source somewhat more famous such as The Trail of Blood, however ridiculous it may be, would be far more notable.Farsight001 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary acknowledges him as "a noted Southern Baptist figure and church historian." In Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (2000), by James Edward McGoldrick, he is referred to as "the most able scholar of the successionist persuasion". Christian's work is also cited in The theology of John Smyth: Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite (2003) by Jason K. Lee. Again, let me stress that this does lend any credence to his arguments, but rather demonstrates that his views are notable enough for inclusion. Ἀλήθεια 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There are tons of problems with this. I think simply listing them will be easiest.

1) A seminary can't acknowledge anyone. It would have to be a person who did that. Who was that person?

2) It was still over 70 years ago.

3) In addition to that, as far as I can tell, James Edward McGoldrick does not appear to be an expert himself, and so is unqualified to make such statements. He has a formal education, but in my searches, I saw nothing suggesting that this education was in history.

4) Being the "most able scholar of the successionist persuasion" doesn't actually mean he knows anything in the first place. I'm sure someone out there could be described as the "most able scholar of the flat earth theory". That doesn't make him an expert on geology or geography or really anything. It makes him an unrespected kook.

5) The very first like of the preface of the book McGoldrick wrote describes the scholarly perspective quite aptly, and it is the scholarly perspective that wikipedia cares about. What does it say? "Although no reputable church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament..." Read that again - "NO REPUTABLE church historians have EVER affirmed".

6) Jason K. Lee is also in no way notable. Dentists by the same name pop up in search results before he does. I also see that he has educational degrees in theology, but don't see mention of ones in history. Though he was significantly more difficult to find info on, so it may just be that I am not seeing his.

7) Lee's book is not a successionist history book. It's an analysis of Smyth's beliefs and how he came to them, and how he became leader of the first group of English baptists. It's got nothing to do with succesionism or any supposed history of the baptists that is in question here.

8) I am also noticing that every single one of these people are associated with the exact same school. Frankly, that makes me highly suspicious.

9) I sort of addressed it already, but I'll say it more clearly down here - having two people support your views does not make you notable OR reputable. Going back to the analogy of flat earth theory - there are hundreds of flat earth believers out there, and a good portion of them probably look to one man as the most eminent expert on the subject. But even if every single follower of flat earth-ism considers this man the foremost expert on the subject, he is still in the minority and has almost no respect among scholars because there are literally millions of other experts who consider him a crackpot just for thinking the earth is flat. So J.T.C. has a few followers. whoopdie doo. What is his level of respect among the ENTIRE historian community? (or at least the community of historians whose expertise is on a related subject) That is what matters here. Two supports is probably somewhere around a paltry .001% of historians.

Also, my other objections remain, which you didn't even try to address. Please do so this time. They were that notability is not the only criteria for inclusion and that the additions were worded in an extremely pov manner. Something else new is that the addition of J.T.C. REPLACED and removed J.R. Graves, and Graves is far more famous. That doesn't make any sense. All of this lends credence to what I suspected from the start - that people are trying to add Christian to this article not because he's actually got some expertise, but rather because they're fans of his.Farsight001 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

talk:Farsight001|talk]]) 04:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

John T. Christian did not replace and remove Graves. Christian was in the section on successionism for a long time and Graves was added not long along ago and Christian removed. Graves was not a historian, Christian was. He was THE historian who led the battle against Whitsitt's lies during the era when Baptist history was revised and the English separatist theory was invented. You may not agree with his conclusions, but to charge him as being an crackpot only proves that you have not read his writing with any comprehension. I might also add that anyone familiar with the real facts knows that Christian whipped the modernist heretic Whitsitt in the hinder parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.58.242 (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally saying something on the talk page. For future reference, you are supposed to discuss, come to an agreement, and THEN make the change if a consensus is arrived at. You said Christian was in the article for the longest time and was recently replaced. Do you have the diff for that? Because I'm not seeing it. In addition, as I already rather well elaborated on above, Christian was not a historian either. I also never charged him with being a crackpot. I was very careful not to. To claim that I did only proves that you have not read MY writing with any comprehension. Try reading it again, because there were about a dozen reasons NOT to use Christian, and him not being an actual historian was only one of them. I also suggest that you look up the No true Scotsman fallacy, as you have blatantly committed it by saying "anyone familiar with the real facts knows that Christian whipped the modernist heretic Whitsitt in the hinder parts". What you essentially said with that phrase is that anyone who disagrees with Christian must be wrong. Well some 99.5%, if not more, of historians on this planet that have any expertise on the subject disagree with Christian. They say Christian is wrong. Christian says they are wrong. Why would we ever believe one man over thousands - especially when those thousands are far more qualified?

I already gave you a suggestion on what you could do if you really thought Christian was a deserving citation. You haven't even tried it. Just complained and reverted, complained and reverted. I guarantee that you get nowhere this way. If you actually ADDRESS what I say and take my suggestions to heart and TRY them instead of just complaining, you might actually get somewhere. If your pattern continues, then I guarantee that you'll just wind up with a blocked IP and be unable to edit at all.Farsight001 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Christian was a historian, but there is no point discussing that with you because you have already decided that he wasn't. You did call him a crackpot. Truth is not decided by majority vote. What else can I say. Christian had a long standing mention in the section on successionism. The mention of him does not even say he was right - it simply points him out as a Baptist historian who held to successionism. He holds a preeminent position in the historical controversy over successionism among Baptists and therefore ought to be mentioned in relation to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.58.242 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you effing serious?!?!?!? You said there is no point in discussing it with me. Really? I've been TRYING to discuss it with you, or did you not notice my sizeable posts on this very talk page? Obviously you did not, as you have yet to actually respond to my arguments, but instead just tell me I'm wrong. That makes you the one refusing to discuss, not me. I even gave you a suggestion on what you could do if you really really thought he should be an acceptable source, but not only have you not tried it, you have not even acknowledged the suggestion. If you're so sure he's acceptable, you could at least respond to the detailed reasons I gave for thinking he's not acceptable, or provide the edit diff I asked for. But you have provided nothing and instead edit the info back in over and over and over again, refusing to actually participate in any discussion of content. Enjoy your ability to edit while it lasts, which is probably another half an hour at most.Farsight001 (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"effing"? And you claim you want to reason? LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.58.242 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So...not going to respond to my above list of reasons not to use J.T.C.? Discussion is kind of the foundation of wikipedia. It crumbles if both people don't participate.Farsight001 (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the mention of John T. Christian in the section on successionism. This is not an addition - it is a restoration of a long standing mention. I reworded the section this morning to pacify Farsight's objection to calling Christian a historian and to retain the mention of Graves. Since Christian has written more prolifically than any other writer from a successionist perspective and since he was an integral figure in the Whitsitt controversy which spearheaded the shift from successionism to the English separatists theory, he certainly ought to be mentioned in connection with successionism.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First, the anon IP calld it a restoration of a long standing mention to, but he, like you, has failed to provide the diff where it was first deleted. I could not find it myself either. Frankly, I doubt its existence.

Second, being a long standing part of an article is no reason for continued inclusion. It could just as easily mean that an improper source went unnoticed.

Third, we still have my list of over nine other reasons above why not to use J.T.C. that no one has yet responded to. Mention him as an advocate of succesionism? Maybe. But present his view as though it is respected and seen as valid by historians, or even that he is the most prominent and, as you and probably-not-coincidentally, the IP put it,"prolific"? Certainly not. I'm only seeing 3 or 4 texts from him. That is hardly prolific. In comparison, the current pope has written 40 books, and no one even calls that prolific.

Fourth, it is supposed to be discuss first, and add the information AFTER coming to an agreement. Rewording it, not asking what other editors think, and sticking it back in, is not proper procedure.Farsight001 (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the latest insertion with this edit. I think we need a third party RS to discuss Christian before reinserting. Citing him as a proponent of a position and only using his own book to support that fact strikes me as OR or WP:UNDUE. What do uninvolved historians say about him? Novaseminary (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Farsight, the only thing I have to say to you is that I am, as you suspect, the anonymous IP who reverted your repeated removal of the long standing mention of Christian. Novaseminary, you know that the mention of Christian has been in the article for quite a while - I'm not sure exactly how long, but it is not a recent addition. As I stated above, he was a central figure in the Whitsitt controversy which precipitated the shift from successionism to the English separatist revision of Baptist origins. The section on successionism does not say that Christian nor successsionism is correct - that honor is reserved for the novel English Separatist view because it is the most widely accepted view. Christian is only identified as a proponent of successionism. If you think that fact needs to be sourced then I'm sure we can dig up some "uninvolved" writer who will substantiate the fact.Mark Osgatharp (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In that case, thank you for admitting that you were using multiple "accounts" to circumvent your block. It will make any potential further reporting that much easier. And if you're not going to respond to the points I made, then the info is never going to wind up in the article. As I said - no discussion means no progress.Farsight001 (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark is correct. John T. Christian has been used as a ref for at least the last year or so (see this version, for instance). I think you are adding too many layers of complexity to this issue. He should be included as a notable contributor to the successionist viewpoint, without adding undue weight or lending credence to his views. He may have been a crackpot, but he was a substantially influential one, as he is the one most often cited. I still think that only a passing mention is needed of the minority viewpoints on Baptist history, but they can't just be ignored, as these viewpoints are a part of the Baptist landscape today. If, however, consensus is that Christian is not a reliable source, then shouldn't all the material supported by Christian sources be removed? HokieRNB 04:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Crackpot or not, if he was substantially influential, he should be mentioned. I agree only a passing mention is appropriate. My concern is a bit different that Farsight's, though. I think we need a good third party source that establishes Christian's influence in this respect. A citation to his own work is not alone sufficient to support the proposition that he was influential. Novaseminary (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

regarding sola fide

The lede of the article says that Baptists subscribe to "salvation through faith alone", and wikilinks "faith alone" to the sola fide article. The sola fide article in turn defines the phrase as justification by faith alone. so we're essentially saying the very strange "...salvation through justification by faith alone" I know that's not what baptists believe. Any suggestions on tweaking the lede to prevent potential confusion?Farsight001 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sola fide article uses "justification" in the sense of the word as explained at justification (theology), namely, "In Christian theology, justification is God's act of declaring or making a sinner righteous before God." In other words, it uses "justification" as nearly synonymous with "salvation". I'm not sure what meaning you're getting from the word "justification" here, and I'm not entirely familiar with Baptist beliefs, but as far as I understand, the lede's wording seems clear and the wikilink is appropriate. As a side note, "Sola fide" is Latin for "by faith alone"; the Latin phrase does not directly mention justification/salvation.

Further quotation from justification (theology): "Protestants believe that justification is a singular act in which God declares an unrighteous individual to be righteous because of the work of Jesus. Justification is granted to all who have faith, but even that is viewed as a gift from God by Lutherans and Calvinists, who use (Eph 2:8) to support that belief." ...comments? ~BFizz 03:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

... "the whole New Testament, and nothing but the New Testament."

Maybe someone in the 1850's said this, but Baptists also have the Old Testament in their bibles and make frequent references to it. This statement probably should be eliminated from the article. I realize the intent of all Baptists is salvation through the life of Jesus Christ, who only appears in the New Testament, but they have not abandondoned the Old Testament. I defer to Theologians to make the changes to the article. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Baptist sidebar template

I recently removed the "soteriology" section from the Template:Baptist sidebar, so it looks like this. (I also made the sidebar collapsible, but that isn't the main issue.) Another editor wants to return the section, to make the template look like this. We have been going around and can’t seem to agree. I figured some editors watching this talk page might care. If so, please weigh-in at Template_talk:Baptist#Eh.... Thank you and happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Baptists are...

This was discussed before, with the consensus on "...a group of denominations, churches, and individuals..." This matches verbiage for other similar movements, and is consistent with the fact that the term doesn't just describe an individual, but it also describes e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention, Lakeside Baptist Church, or a baptist preacher. I don't think it should be changed to exclude any of these senses of the word. HokieRNB 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I would not oppose switching the order, though, along the lines of "...are a group of individuals, and their churches and denominations,..." Either way, I still think it more accurate and prefer the version to which Hokie reverted and mentioned above over the recent change. Novaseminary (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Baptists" are not "a group of denominations". By definition Baptists are people, who are members of a group of denominations and churches. A church, denomination, or person can be described with the adjective "Baptist", but "Baptists" are always people.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

See for example Britannica, which defines "Baptist" as: "Member of a group of Protestant Christians".--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, individually a single Baptist is a person (as a noun). However, the word Baptist is also an adjective. And collectively, Baptists do comprise multiple denominations, multiple churches, and multiple individual people. Therefore, it's not incorrect to say Baptists (collectively) are a group of denominations, churches, and individuals. Ἀλήθεια 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not incorrect to say Baptists comprise a group of denominations and churches, as those things are made up of people. However it is incorrect to say Baptists "are a group of denominations etc", because they are people by definition, not a group of denominations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a crack at bridging the difference with this edit. Does anyone have any thoughts? Novaseminary (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though I think it should just say "Baptists comprise a group of Christian denominations and churches..." Or, as in my original edit, "Baptists are members of a group of Christian denominations and churches..." Both versions include Baptist individuals, denominations and churches.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Several editors over the past few weeks have (without any discussion) removed things that are fundamental to historic "baptistism", such as salvation by faith alone and baptism by immersion. If they are going to be removed, it should be by consensus of editors, not by unilateral fly-by edits. Ἀλήθεια 01:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's just drive by vandalism. I've protected the page for a week, hopefully that will take care of it.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Baptist churches are widely considered to be Protestant churches, though some Baptists disavow this identity." would be better and more accurately rendered as "Baptist churches are widely considered by others to be Protestant churches. Some Baptists disavow this identity, rather pointing to first centuary New Testament Churches as their origin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.61.10 (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that that's an improvement. Baptists are widely considered to be Protestants by both themselves and others. It's a small group of Baptists who disavow that identity.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Pacifism

Are all baptists christian pacifists or only some of them? In Russia baptists are traditionally pacifists and this was the reason for their persecution during Soviet times when they refused conscription. I have read a Russian article claiming that in the USA baptists serve in the army and, therefore, "their pacifism is not a religious belief but an anty-state ideology". Something about pacifism should be mentioned in this article. Olegwiki (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am Baptist and I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are many, many Baptists (at least in the US) who are not pacifists. Several young men from my church have joined the military, and I have heard preachers preach from the pulpit that they would shoot someone in defense of their family (and every Baptist I've ever heard comment on the subject agrees with them). I do not recall ever meeting a pacifistic Baptist, although I'm sure they exist. If you have a good source, you could probably mention the subject. 74.185.193.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC).

As can be seen from the article (Origins section), "Baptists" is an umbrella term, and had many progenitors. Those in the US that come from branches nearer the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition are pacifists. Southern Baptists generally are more militaristic. It does not surprise me that Russian Baptists are closer to the pacifist Mennonites. In the US, it was a fairly big controversy during the Vietnam war, where many northern or german baptists were pacifists.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Southern Baptist Convention off-shoots

I have reverted here because, as I noted in the edit summary, this seems out of context, not quite right, and is partially sourced to a soruce rthat makes no mention of inerrancy. The rest is without any support. Before this goes back in, I think it needs to be fully sourced (Wp:V) and placed into context (WP:UNDUE). And of course, Wp:BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The SBC offshoots are certainly notable. I have restored them, with references and more NPOV wording. -- 202.124.75.80 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced nonsense about "The southern congregations were also concerned over perceived liberalism in the north, accusing some missionaries of denying virgin birth and divinity of Jesus." The {citation needed} has been there for over 8 months. Instead, I added references for the other statements in that paragraph, and harmonized with linked pages.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation links

Anonymous editors keep removing disambiguation links from this article. Please note, these links are merely an aid to the reader, so if they click on them they will be directed to the correct article. The term "Lord's Supper" remains in the text of the Baptists article, and the distinction is explained more fully in the linked article, which opens with "The Eucharist (/ˈjuːkərɪst/), also called Holy Communion, the Sacrament of the Altar, the Blessed Sacrament, the Lord's Supper, and other names, is a Christian sacrament or ordinance." There is no separate article for "Lord's Supper". Please stop reverting. HokieRNB 15:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Another technique might be to use Redirect pages to catch all the links.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Rename Baptist?

Per SINGULAR, should this page be moved to Baptist? --JFHutson (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed some time ago (Talk:Baptists/Archive_5#Change_article_title_to_Baptists.3F) and consensus went the other way leading to all Baptist articles moving eventually. I think it fits under the second listed exception to the more extensive guidance at WP:PLURAL. Novaseminary (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's not yet a consistent format for groups of people; both plural and singular forms are used, though usually it's expected that related articles will be consistent with each other. There are plenty of other articles on religious groups that use the plural, for instance Jews, Copts, and Saint Thomas Christians (so far). I don't see the need for a change here.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, makes sense. --JFHutson (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)