Talk:Baptists/Archive 2

message: The Catholic Church, by default the 'original' Pauline-inspired Church of the Latinate
peoples, considers any religion claiming to be both Christian yet not Catholic as
both heretical as well as 'Protestant'. The Protestants do not determine who is a 
Protestant except by protesting against the teachings of the Catholics, thereby
becoming Protestants. Simpatico.
This is a "no-brainer."  First, it depends upon whether you're talking about German Baptists or English Baptists.  German Baptists, better known as Anabaptists, are "Classical Protestants."  English Baptists - like Methodists, Congregationalists, Salvation Army, and other offshoots of the Church of England, are "Neo-Protestants."
(Rursus þhinx þe followiŋ is so good þat it deserves an article: User:Rursus 10:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

message: (Inserted heading: User:Rursus 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOUNDING PERIOD:  AD 41 through c. AD 330

message: (Inserted heading: User:Rursus 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CATHOLIC MOVEMENT:  c. AD 330 - c. AD 1500

message: (Inserted heading: User:Rursus 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REFORMATION AND COUNTER-REFORMATION:  c. AD 1500 - c. AD 1700

message: (Inserted heading: User:Rursus 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It is an interesting socio-religious belief, but it is awfully terrible history. Eschew obfuscation 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEO-PROTESTANTS & NEO-CHRISTIANS:  c. AD 1600 to PRESENT

message: hmm...The article states that there are more than 90 million Baptists in the world, with about 40 million in the US. Then it says that 70% of the Baptists are in the US. These numbers don't add up. Which one's right? ( think the numbers are of SBC baptist so the difference in the numbers could be made of on non-convention baptist)
Ben 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, the domain cited is also cited on major religious groups (a different page) to list the number of Baptists worldwide as 70 million. Is it 90 million or 70 million and why does adherents.com list two different numbers? --Nhoj 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of baptists

message: I just made a lot of edits and removals which I will try to explain below
* The Christian theology series is linked in the Christianity series
* GARBC is not a significant enough association to merit notice in the intro paragraph
* The African conventions lead to blank articles and are referenced in the baptist subdenomination link
* The section on autographs and translations is not a baptist issue but a biblical inerrancy or translation issue
* Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is listed in the famous baptist page and does not need additional recognition here
* The theory of unfermented wine in the bible is questionable enough and of little value here
* The section on megachurch architecture appears to be some sort of slight against megachurches and not of any particular encyclopedic value
* Links to individual churches or baptist organizations of no encyclopedic value were removed
* Fundamentalism and Protestant were already linked to in the article
Gold Dragon 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals 

message: This sentence, or similar, has been in the Baptist article for quite a while, according to the history: "Participation may be either 'closed' where only members of that church can participate, 'cracked' where members of other Baptist churches may participate, but not of other denominations, or open' where anyone professing to be a Christian may participate." I would propose that it be changed to "Participation may be either 'closed' where only members of that church can participate, 'close' where members of other Baptist churches may participate, but not of other denominations, or 'open' where anyone professing to be a Christian may participate." We discussed this term quite a while back on the old Communion thread and decided to remove it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eucharist/Archive_2#.22Cracked.22_Communion.3F
IMO, "close" is preferable to "cracked". Close and closed are often confused, and cracked offers the option of being clearly different. But it seems that this term probably has only limited usage in some area, is not in common use among Baptists, and is not particularly descriptive without the accompanying explanation. - Rlvaughn 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this.  I too have never heard the term cracked before but have heard the concept referred to as close.  I don't believe anyone who practices a 'cracked' communion would ever refer to it as such since it implies a middle point between two other positions.  Gold Dragon 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cracked" communion 

message: There is a very important problem with this article -- it's too generic.  It ignores the fact there is no one Christian group called "Baptist" but the term is used by many completely different Protestant lines of faith.  The one thing they all have in common is avoidance of infant baptism.  Otherwise, they are separate faiths - and NOT all of them are organised with a congregational-style administration.  Neither do they all believe in separation of church and state, nor do they all agree on the definition of "Christian."  In the United States alone, for example, the member churches of the Southern Baptist Convention are far more conservative than the American Baptist Church, which is very liberal.  Among other differences, Southern Baptists do NOT support separation of Church and State but are among the strongest advocates for prayer in the public schools, while American Baptists are opposed to prayer in the public schools.
Historically, the two major divisions of "Baptists" were English Baptists, that is, the Baptists who broke away from the Church of England; and the German Baptists, better known as Anabaptists, who developed earlier and completely independently of the English Baptist tradition.  The article should be reorganised to talk about the origins of the common name "Baptist," then discuss each of the major Baptist denominations separately.
-- 8 April 2006, 6:34 Pacific Daylight Time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.195 (talk • contribs) .
I don't really agree.  Even Richard Land, with the Faith and Ethics Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, would agree that Separation of Church and State is important.  The differences lie in how that is interpreted, of course.
I think the best way to consider the issue is this: there is a Baptist World Alliance.  It is generally a more conservative organization, yet most of its members would have no problem agreeing to the description of Baptists put forward in this article.  If you want another article, perhaps one on differences and controversies within the Baptist Tradition would be good, but I think this one is fine in its current form, even if tweaks are always welcome. Sighter Goliant 05:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: issues by anon

message: James Dunn often said that no Baptist speaks for Baptists, they speak TO Baptists.  Might it be possible to include a separate section, towards the top, which makes a disclaimer?  It would concern the enormous diversity in the tradition, and make a statement concerning the attempt of the article to reflect the general feeling of what Baptists believe...generally. 05:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity

message: Do Baptists still practice slavery?  It was(is?) a major part of there religion and belief.
:Slavery was not and has not ever been a "major part of there [sic] religion and belief."  There was a regrettable period of American history in which many Baptists of the American South chose to choose their culture over Christ, using the Bible to justify slave ownership, but this in no way constitutes a central tenet of belief.  However, even in the South this opinion was not uniform -- the faculty of Furman University, for instance, split directly down the middle on the question, and only adopted a pro-slavery stance because of the President of that institution.  Considering, however, that such support was a localized incident, I don't feel it has any importance in an article dealing with Baptists all over the world.  Sighter Goliant 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was a really big issue for the Baptists in the 1830s and 1840s-- the Southerners split off from the North over the issue of slave ownership by missionaries.Rjensen 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, if it's that important edit the history section.  However, I'm of the opinion that the article is US-heavy.  Such information might be more appropriate to a "Baptists in the United States" article. Sighter Goliant 04:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptists amd Slavery

message: Rjensen feels that a discussion on the membership of baptist in various conventions requires its own section while I believe it belongs in the section on the autonomy of the local church.  My reasoning is that conventions have arisen from the doctrine of local autonomy and any discussion about the historical relationships between associations/conventions should be discussed in more detail in a baptist history section outlining different groups and movements from the time of English separatists to modern baptists.  I believe giving global and national membership numbers while highlighting that the SBC is the largest assocation is enough introduction these ideas for the intro paragraph.
Gold Dragon 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Membership

message: Could somebody possibly move this to a list layout? It's confusing to read...
Atchius 02:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Baptists 

message: I took at look at the 40 million number, the 90% and the 90 million figure. According to adherent.com (Which is recommended as a source by census.gov) there are an estimated 47 million baptists in the US (2004 estimate). The assertation of 90 million worldwide baptists was uncorroborated by anything I found, and it is unclear exactly how many there are. I would guess that the 90% figure is innaccurate, though, as baptist roots are clearly in europe.
--Hagel boville 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  did a checkup on the numbers 

message: I've tagged this as being too focused on the US. More information on Baptists in other countries is needed, and breaking out the section on Baptists in the United States into its own article will also help with the size issues. -- Perey 09:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic scope 

message: Southern Baptist is not the real Baptist denomination. The Baptist doctrine is reformed, while Southern Baptist is Arminian in theology. Southern Baptist and Baptist may need to be two seperate pages.Gotmesomepants 22:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where you are getting that, most, though certainly not all, So. Baptist are Calvinistic.  There are some Arminian.  Independent Baptists, however, tend to be Arminian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Baptist vs. Baptist

message: Hello, I am a Christian. I go to a Baptist church, but I do not believe you have to get baptised. What am I considered? -66.218.19.31 04:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What am I considered? 

message: There are several statements that have been tagged as needing citations.  I have gathered them here so that they can be worked on:
*In 1866 the Consolidated American Baptist Convention, formed from black Baptists of the South and West, helped southern associations set up black state conventions, which they did in Alabama, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky.
*It [National Baptist Convention] is the largest black religious organization and the second largest Baptist organization in the world.
*The Baptist faith is the predominant faith of African Americans.
*The Northern Baptist Convention in the United States had internal conflict over modernism in the early 20th century, ultimately embracing it.
*Many Baptist groups, including the Southern Baptist Convention and the Baptist Bible Fellowship do not cooperate with the [Baptist World] Alliance.
*Under the "beliefs that differ", there was a sneaky little addition of "the very nature of the gospel" at the end of one of the lines. I suspect that though it is likely true, it would be very difficult to find a good citation. Still, I've requested one.
HokieRNB 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for some citations 

message: Should Independent Baptist be merged here?
=== Survey ===
*Merge - ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Except that the other "schismatic sects" or issues arising out of those controversies do, and should, have Wikipedia articles even if this main article does not note them very clearly: "Landmark crisis":Landmarkism; "Missions crisis": Primitive Baptists\Missionary Baptists; "Slavery crisis": Southern Baptist Convention\Northern Baptist Convention; "Modernist crisis": Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence, Northern Baptist Convention, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Alliance of Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I don't see how it meets any of the requirements for notability at WP:NONPROFIT ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books give 1500 hits. See this book, for example. StAnselm (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still not convinced that it is WP:N enough to warrant its own article apart from the broader Baptist article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Independent Baptist merge 

message: *Merge - ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Except that the other "schismatic sects" or issues arising out of those controversies do, and should, have Wikipedia articles even if this main article does not note them very clearly: "Landmark crisis":Landmarkism; "Missions crisis": Primitive Baptists\Missionary Baptists; "Slavery crisis": Southern Baptist Convention\Northern Baptist Convention; "Modernist crisis": Southern Baptist Convention conservative resurgence, Northern Baptist Convention, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, and Alliance of Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: The article is a SHORT stub, and does not seem notable enough on its own apart from broader Baptist information. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how it meets any of the requirements for notability at WP:NONPROFIT ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Google books give 1500 hits. See this book, for example. StAnselm (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still not convinced that it is WP:N enough to warrant its own article apart from the broader Baptist article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion 

message: Their number can add up to a total of close to 100 million adherents in the world through 211 denominations, making Baptists the largest Protestant denomination in the world.[33]
#33 is a dead link.  Fact - Pentecostalism is Protestant.  Pentecostalism, according to the Pentecostalism article one Wikipedia there are 279 Million Pentecostals worldwide.  The fact is that the figure of 279 Million is greater than 100 million.Easeltine (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership Statistics 

message: Editors interested in this article may have useful insights to offer in the WP:CFD discussion of the name for a related category: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 5#Category:Baptists in the United States.  --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CFD discussion 

message: There are several mentions of "English Separatists" that are piped to English Dissenters.  SHould the text be changed to match the links? Iapetus (talk) 10:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. "Separatists" would have been the term used for the particular time period in question. Ltwin (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seperatists" or "Dissenters"? 

message: Could editors knowledgeable about historical Baptist teachings on the baptism with the Holy Spirit please contribute to the relevant section of that article. An editor recently created this section but its sources seem to be drawn primarily from Landmark Baptist points of view. It would be great if we could have information from good, reliable sources representing the full range of non-charismatic Baptist churches for this section. Ltwin (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Baptists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619030031/http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=31878 to http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=31878
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927062252/http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/notables/clarke.htm to http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/notables/clarke.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.londonbaptist.org.uk/about-us/baptists/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619020303/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23725 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=23725
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110123654/http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/baptists.htm to http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/baptists.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728000657/http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=5592 to http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=5592
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100522053048/http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif to http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Baptists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018074627/http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm to http://www.baptisthistory.org/sbaptistbeginnings.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.londonbaptist.org.uk/about-us/baptists/?option=com_content&view=article&id=94%3Awhat-is-the-history-of-the-lba&catid=43&Itemid=105
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627073219/http://www.bwanet.org/about-us2/statistics to http://www.bwanet.org/about-us2/statistics
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013130242/http://baptisthistory.org/contissues/pinson.htm to http://www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/pinson.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140623204825/http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/dwngrd.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/dwngrd.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence currently attempts to define "Baptist" in a very strange way:
"Baptists are individuals who believe that a church consists of a gathered group of believers that subscribe to a doctrine that baptism should be performed [...]"
The sentence seems to define "Baptists" as individuals believing something about the nature of the church. This is rather convoluted, and would also imply a number of strange things. For one thing, you don't need to identify yourself with christianity at all to believe this (strange) statement about christianity. And also, no baptists could acknowledge any other churches, by this definition.
So, the first sentence needs rewriting. By noting that Baptist Churches is a branch of Christianity, emphasising believer's baptism, I tried for this: "Baptists are [members of] local churches, distinguished primarily by baptising professing believers only." (I did not include the  (members of) paranthesis in my first edit, since it seems strange for an encyclopedia article to focus on individuals of a movement, rather than the movement itself.)
Perhaps (rather almost surely) this suggestion can be improved. So since the original edit was reverted, please come with input! St.nerol (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Baptist in first sentence 

message: Since pentecostal churches also generally adhere to believer’s baptism by immersion, (see e.g. https://classroom.synonym.com/pentecostal-baptism-ceremony-12085354.html and also Pentecostalism (look for “water baptism”)), the current definition of “baptist” is not satisfactory. Nailing down a church tradition in a simple definition is sure not an easy thing!
To get around this, I suggest the following more “humble” introduction: “'Baptists’ are Christians belonging to Baptist local churches. The Baptist tradition is characterised, among other things, by baptising professing believers only …” St.nerol (talk) 19:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition should not include Pentecostals

message: Surely the religion of Baptists cannot be called “Baptism”. Is there really no proper term? 201.92.155.126 (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's simply the "Baptist tradition" or "Baptist church" or, for a person, simply a "Baptist" or a "Baptist Christian". Ltwin (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Noun

message: This section begins with "Traditional Baptist historians write from the perspective that Baptists had existed since the time of Christ.[21] However, the Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions rejecting this view in 1859.[citation needed]" I recommend removing the uncited mention about the Southern Baptist Convention. According to the SBC's own website, there were seven (7) resolutions in 1859. None of the seven have anything to do with rejecting a view on the origins of Baptists. Perhaps a resolution about this was passed by someone somewhere in 1859, but it was not at the Southern Baptist Convention. The resolutions can be viewed here: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/?fwp_resolutions_by_year=1859-annual-meeting Rlvaughn (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has commented on this, especially not giving proof of the statement, I am going to edit this out of the article. Rlvaughn (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perpetuity and succession view 

message: In this section, we have the following sentence: "However, the relations between Baptists and Anabaptists were early strained. In 1624, the then five existing Baptist churches of London issued a condemnation of the Anabaptists.[19]" Footnote 19 is to The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research. by Champlin Burrage, p. 222.
I recommend removing or rewriting this sentence, which does not reflect what is in the context of Burrage's writing on page 222. He does not mention Baptists, but differences among people who were called Anabaptists. Even on page 221, Burrage calls John Smyth an Anabaptist, who this page (under his picture) calls having the first church called Baptist in Amsterdam. The reference to Burrage does not support the claim in this section, and only confuses the matter. Rlvaughn (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages 21ff in The Early English Baptists by Benjamin Evans shows there was friendly fraternal correspondence in 1624 between churches in England and Holland, even about some things on which they were not in complete agreement. https://archive.org/details/earlyenglishbapt02evan/page/20/mode/2up Rlvaughn (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anabaptist influence view 

message: The introduction "Baptists form a major branch of Evangelical Christianity distinguished by baptizing professing Christian believers only" is incorrect as not all baptists in the world are evangelical. For exemple American Baptist Churches USA is mainline. I suggest change it to "Baptists form a major branch of Protestantism distinguished by baptizing professing Christian believers only" as even if most baptist organizations are evangelical, baptists are one of the largest branches of protestantism over all, surpassed in numbers only by Pentecostalism and Anglicanism. - Barumbarumba (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: . —Confession0791 talk 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Evangelical? 

message: The text under the portrait "John Smyth is believed to have the first church labeled "Baptist" in Amsterdam in 1609" gives no sources for this presumed (and in my view quite possibly erroneous) view of the first designation of a congregation (or person) as "Baptist". 
This ought to be improved, or deleted, even though I would not dispute that the Amsterdam Congregation was baptist, or near to that, in actual faith and practice...
But "labeled" would need an actual source.
2001:9E8:416C:D800:766A:452E:D7B1:ADED (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name/label as opposed to faith and practice 

message: This description of Baptist is giving many errors- period- baptism is required as part of the salvation process and is not an option in true baptist churches 2601:285:401:5F90:AD6F:5541:B3E5:7893 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is giving wrong info