Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 23 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages:RS#Academic_consensus). If you think a source that others have rejected is in fact a RS, post to Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

• 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