Talk:Baptists/Archive 3

message: Some won't like this way of thinking: what defines the religious classification is not similarity in faith, it is cultural heritage: the unpleasant simile is that South American Condor is neither a vulture, nor a raptor, but rather Storks, despite superficial similarity. If then anabaptists arose as an early splitoff from the Reformeds, they are reformeds or schismatic reformeds. Similarly Baptists arose from a puritan cultural environment, then they're either puritans or schismatic puritans, sort of - and puritans are kind'a'anglicans. Baptist/Anabaptist comparison is kind of inappropriate in the initial paragraph, I think. Opinions? User:Rursus 11:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rursus, I think that -- when they were often called "anabaptists" (meaning "again" baptised, from Catholics baptised at infancy requesting to be baptised as an adult) -- is just as well left out of the first paragraph, an edit which has been made. The article is certainly none the worse for Presbyter's edit, but I think we need to be aware this isn't a completely "erroneous statement about anabaptists", whether or not one accepts any connection to the Continental Anabaptists. They often (commonly) were "called anabaptists". For example, when seven baptist congregations in London issued a confession of faith in 1644, they wrote, "A Confession of Faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists..." http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/h.htm - Rlvaughn 15:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I see! More like a confusion between technical descriptive terms and taxonomies of heritage then. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 21:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Yes, I can agree with that. Universe is never as simple as we believe. Twirling his moustaches, does: Rursus 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baptists are not Anabaptists

message: Problems with how the lede is written, not what it contains: (Underlined phrases are unnecessary religious language or unclear jargon).
:"A Baptist is a person with faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Israel and who has confessed that faith by submitting to an immersion in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
This is too general because there are other believer's baptists out there who are not Baptists. Define what Baptist (capitals) means as a denominational term because thats what this article is about.
:"The Baptist movement began when John the Baptist baptized Jesus with a deep water immersion in the River Jordan." 
This is a claim (about a "movement"), one which is generally called "restorationist" because it asserts that its indirect traditions are directly linked to ancient ones.
:"Jesus subsequently established the first baptistic congregation among the Jews and the movment has spread to most (if not all) nations under heaven at this present day."
"Subsequently" tries to build off the prior claim (without citing it as a claim), "baptistic" tries to show that Jesus' baptism was "Baptist-like" as if to emphasise the direct connection. 
:"Theologically, Baptists emphasize the absolute authority of the Scriptures"
Just say "the Bible".
:"Consequently, they acknowledge faith in Jesus as the Savior as the only way of eternal life," believer's baptism by full immersion as the only baptism, and the  congregational governance system as the only valid form of church government.  Baptist churches often associate in national organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Convention, and the American Baptist Association, as well as hundreds of regional and local associations.  There are also many Independent Baptist churches who do not participate in any organized associations but, nonetheless, have vigorous fellowship with other likeminded churches.
"Consequently" like "subsequently" is just conversational language that tries to be logical. "Only way," "only valid form," "likeminded," are claims, not "acknowledgements," according to NPOV - which guides all of the writing here on Wikipedia. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede problems 

message: Why does the opening section reference the Christian Bible with "i.e. KJV."  There are certainly many KJV-Only Baptists, but as a whole, this is not the majority.  I am going to remove the IE for the moment as Christian Bible (properly linked) is good enough.
:Never mind, someone beat me to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a simple answer.  The King James Version still has the most market saturation, which is to say that it is the most widely purchased in the world, but not necessarily the most highly regarded as far as translations go.  Several large and influential organizations (such as John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church and Al Mohler's Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) have endorsed the English Standard Version, while many Baptists have adopted the use of the New International Version for their daily reading.  Most non-English translations are either based off the NIV, KJV, or rely on more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.  The New American Standard Bible remains the top translation choice for many seminaries, but the King James Version remains in many pew racks. I think it's sufficient to say that Baptists in general recognize the Bible as authoritative. HokieRNB 14:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a genuine answer. I think its germane to the article and deserves a section. Now, what about fixing up the writing in the lede paragraphs? -Ste|vertigo 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  It reads much better now. -Ste|vertigo 00:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i.e. KJV? 

message: The article needs to be rewritten, it is too biased towards the theological and historical point of view of a particular group, without objetively representing the theological variety among baptists.
--Thebaptist 23:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: note:  I rescued this comment from Talk:Baptist/Comments HokieRNB 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning need for rewrite. It would be better to fix actual biases. You can help by identifying problem areas that you see. Thanks for sharing your concern. Afaprof01 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: needs to be rewritten

message: User:Thebaptist persists in changing this article back to say "sacrament or ordinance" in spite of the fact that total avoidance of the term "sacrament" in any connection, especially to refer to Believer's Baptism and The Lord's Supper, is a very strong Baptist distinctive. I cannot find any credible information to suggest that any major Baptist group uses "sacrament" in any connection. If you have such credible evidence, please share it here for the edification of all. Thanks. CME GBM 23:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just like to say that as a Baptist, I know have only heard the word sacrament in my church once.  Emperor001 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sacrament vs Ordinance

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

message: Let's try to keep this acronym of general principles, well, general.  Not every Baptist believes in absolute "inerrancy," but "authority" fits everyone.  And while every Baptist church practices immersion, not every Baptist church thinks the method of baptism is the necessary component of the rite, and historically speaking it is the question of who and not how we baptize that matters.
In addition, shouldn't the discussion that follows the acronym actually focus on defining the acronym?  I know it did at one point, but it's becoming a hodgepodge of unrelated material.  This article needs some serious cleanup, especially in the doctrinal area. Sighter Goliant 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitely needs to be a citation for it. TULIP has been around for centuries and is referred to often by Reformed theologians. I only read of the BAPTIST acronym when reading it the other day. It's a bit hokey to tell you the truth. --One Salient Oversight 04:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but only partially.  For one thing, the various components of the BAPTIST acronym are all a fairly decent encapsulation of Baptist theology and they work in such a way as to cover a wide range of Baptist bodies without regard to conservative or liberal bias.  BAPTIST seems like a convenient way to remember them.  I would support a citation if someone can find where it came from, but I don't see it being necessary. Sighter Goliant 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The BAPTIST Acronym

message: I could see the use for splitting this article and having a section on Baptist Beliefs.  We could very briefly mention the acronym and the meaning of each letter, but then have the description of what the various constituent parts of the acronym mean in the new article.  It cuts down on clutter and makes this article more encyclopedic and focused. Sighter Goliant 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, split it! Take the deep theology separately, and keep an overview in this article! (If I'm not first to do it! Be quick!!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no rudeness intended! Forget that parenthesis. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the Article

message: From what I see, this article does need to be split, at least not until it has been restructured. This article needs to start off with the facts about what a baptist is. The funny part about splitting this article is that the part being suggested to move is what a baptist generally beleives. If you take the beleifs out of the Baptist, what do you have left? Just another soul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Talotta2003 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, split it! Take the deep theology separately, and keep an overview in this article! (If I'm not first to do it! Be quick!!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no rudeness intended! Forget that parenthesis. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 12:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the Article 

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

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

message: There's nothing about their views of homosexuality here. A.Z. 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...besides the fact that this is a controversial issue and that each person is allowed to have their own opinion. A.Z. 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality 

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

message: Surveys have routinely found that most Americans outside of the southern states in the USA have a poor opinion of Baptists. Baptists are often considered dogmatic, fundamentalist, politically-motivated, homophobic, and intolerant. Southern Baptist and many independent Baptist congregations are closely allied with the Religious Right and have been active in campaigns against abortion, feminism, homosexuality, gun control, and the teaching of evolution in public schools, and have voted overwhelmingly in favor of Republican politicians who espouse the deregulation of industry, the abolition or gutting of minimum-wage and worker-safety laws, and the abolition of social welfare programs. Many Southern Baptist leaders, such as Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, and Paul Pressler, belong to conservative political groups such as the Council for National Policy. Southern Baptist leaders were among the few religious leaders who supported the Iraq War. Many Southern and independent Baptists have also engaged in evangelistic activities that critics contend are abrasive and inappropriate for modern American culture. For example, Jack T. Chick, an independent Baptist, distributes religious cartoons that call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, imply that religious groups that use a version of the Bible other than the King James Version are part of a Satanic ploy to usher in the reign of the Anti-Christ, and state that contemporary Christian music is from Satan.
Due to the activities of these Baptist groups, many moderate Baptists in the United States have sought to distance themselves from the Baptist label in order to engage in evangelism and outreach more effectively. Many moderate Baptist churches have adopted names such as “Community Church” or “Community Chapel” to avoid being mistakenly associated with fundamentalist Baptist groups. Many moderate Baptists interpret statements from Southern Baptists and some independent Baptists to mean that the SBC and independent Baptists no longer believe in Baptist doctrines of separation of church and state, soul competency, and the central role of Christ's teachings as the key to interpreting the Bible as a whole. 
In 2004, the Southern Baptist Convention quit the Baptist World Alliance and severed fellowship with most mainstream Baptist groups in the world. The SBC alleged that the Baptist World Alliance was too liberal and objected to the alliance's acceptance of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a denomination formed by dissident Southern Baptists, as a member.
The Southern Baptist Convention later announced plans to pursue closer relationships with independent Baptists and other fundamentalist groups that share its conservative political agenda and fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible.
:this material needs to be sourced and integrated into the existing article. HokieRNB 15:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: regarding Jack T. Chick, since he is independent, it is advisable to stress this independence and compare to other common opinions among USA:n Baptists. For the sake of fairness. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I still feel this is not well sourced with one emerging church proponent, one liberal university divinity school dean, one extreme fundamentalist, the urban dictionary, and wikipedia itself - not a compendium of reliable sources to be sure.  I think this section is better left completely out of the article. HokieRNB 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend that the entire section on the view of Baptists in the United States be flagged for bias. It is poorly cited and does not seem to offer both point and counterpoint on its content. 161.6.165.135 09:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation of Baptists in the United States 

message: Now my doubts regard the etymology of "Baptist" as regards it's usage with respect to Baptists. I placed a , (citation needed) mark on "Baptist" in the start of the article. The question is:
:who did first use the term "Baptist"?
:*if the answer is the Baptists themselves, it is likely the word derives directly from greek baptizein (immerse), not from Anabaptism, since the theologies differ vaAAAastly (!!),
:*if sarcastic outsiders named the Baptists "Baptists" it is more likely that "Baptists" is actually a shorthand for "Anabaptists",
Said: Rursus ☻ 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Baptist/Anabaptist stuff, again

message: Actually:
#it refers to the history of Anabaptists as being the history of Baptists. That story is already written in Anabaptists, so it could instead be referred to in the origins section - as a theory,
#it should be chronological, from a starting point when Baptists can be securely identified (disregarding theories about Anabaptist heritage and such), forward in time up to today,
Said: Rursus ☻ 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins section

message: I have taken this section of text out of the article's lead and moved it to the distinctive beliefs.  I think it still needs help if it is going to be informative to the majority of readers:
:The polity of autonomy is closely related to the polity of congregational governance. Just as each Baptist priest with soul competency is equal to all other Baptists in a church, so each church is equal to every other church. No church or ecclesiastical organization has authority over a Baptist church. Churches can properly relate to each other under this polity only through voluntary cooperation, never by any sort of coercion. Furthermore, this Baptist polity calls for freedom from governmental control.Pinson, William M., Jr. "Trends in Baptist Polity." Baptist History and Heritage Society. Available online: http://www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/pinson.htm
HokieRNB (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved a section of text 

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

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

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

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

message: This was raised in point 10 above, but not addressed. 
My impression (from outside the Baptist church) is that Separation of Church and State is the opposite of what Baptists believe. Does the BAPTIST acronym refer to historical rather than current beliefs? --84.203.65.190 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Church and State