Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 15 January 2010

Christianity: Baptist NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This page is supported by Baptist work group.

This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

2005 and prior 2006 November 2006 to September 2008 September 2008 to October 2009

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 from the sources or an attempt to insert some unsourced viewpoints? --NeilN 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 Misplaced Pages. NJA (t/c) 08:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• NA-Class Christianity pages
• NA-importance Christianity pages
• NA-Class Baptist work group pages
• NA-importance Baptist work group pages
• Baptist work group articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles