Talk:Baptists/Archive 2

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))

Here is a brief history of Christianity by church foundation:

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

AD 41: Founding of the Church of Antioch, modernly the (West) Syrian Church. AD 43: Founding of the Church of Alexandria, modernly the Coptic or Coptic Orthodox Church. -- Additional founding churches (collections of congregations) included: Church of Rome, Church of Byzantium, Ethiopian Church, Chaldaen (or East Syrian, or Iraqi) Church, Armenian Church, and the Celtic Church. The Celtic Church was reputedly founded about the year AD 108, at Paris, by disciples of Saint Phillilp. It was shortly thereafter introduced to Britain and Ireland. Celtic Christianity essentially was, and remained for a good millenium, a Christianised form of Druidism. One important difference of the Celtic Church was its practice of ordaining women, and the establishment of "co-educational" monasteries, with celibate monks in one wing and celebate nuns in the opposite wing (a bit like an H-block prison), all presided over by one Lady Abbess. The most famous of these was Saint Bridget, Bishop and Abbess of Kildare. Note: Ireland was not a Roman Catholic country until the English took over in 1171; and the Irish did not embrace the imposition of Roman Catholicism by the English, until Henry VIII turned Protestant and made himself head of the Church of Ireland.

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

The conversion of Emperor Constantine made Christianity the "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" or "Universal Roman Church." Constantine then complicated the question by establishing two capital cities, so that the Church of Rome (Italian Christianity) and the Church of Byzantium (Greek Christianity) ultimately came to compete with each other, each claiming to be the true universal or "catholic" church of the Roman Empire.

Things came to a head in 1056 with the Mutual Excommunication (sometimes called "Great Schism," after which the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople (formerly Byzantium) refused to recognise each other as Christians until 1966.

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

Martin Luther, Ioannes Calvinus or John Calvin, the Anabaptist leaders, and, eventually, Henry VIII were instrumental in establishing the four lines of Classical Protestant thought: Lutheranims, Calvinism, Anabaptist (German Baptist - originally so radical that the other three Classical Protestant groups considered Anabaptists to be heretics), and Anglicanism.

The national churches established along Calvinist lines are usually called "Reformed Church," e.g., Swiss Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and so on. In France/Francophone cultures, Calvinists are called "Huguenot"; in Scotland/Scottish/Scots-Irish cultures, Presbyterian (or in the Province of Quebec, "Presbyterienne"); in Wales, Calvinistic Methodist (because the seminal church in Wales was supposed to be Methodist, but instead of getting a Methodist minister from England they ended up with a Presbyterian leader from Scotland); and in England, and colonial America, Calvinists were/are variously called "Puritans" and "Congregationalists" - the former, a broader term that also included some radical non-Calvinist Protestant Dissenters, and the latter a Neo-Protestant institution (like the Methodists) but with a prevailing Calvinist theology.

The Anglican Communion is unusual among Classical Protestant churches in being incredibly broad in theology and ritual. The very Low Church Anglicans are nearly indistinguishable from Presbyterians, Methodists, and so on, while Anglo-Catholic Anglicans are often described as "More Catholic than Roman Catholics." There is a full range of traditions and beliefs in-between, and there are number of practicing members of the Church of England and other branches of the Anglican Communion - including the occasional priest (who may be male or female) who are atheists, but they still go to church every Sunday because it's part of their cultural tradition (their disbelief in the basic theology is considered irrelevant to their faith in the church).

NEO-PROTESTANTS & NEO-CHRISTIANS: c. AD 1600 to PRESENT
(Inserted heading: User:Rursus 10:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

These groups fall into three general categories, with founding dates as early as the seventeenth century and as late as the twentieth:

1. Neo-Protestant Church of England Dissenters:  English Baptists, at least nominally including all American Baptist churches that do not trace to German origins; Methodists and Free Methodists; Salvation Army; and so on. If it broke away from the Church of England (or was founded by someone who broke away from the Church of England), it's part of this group. "Neo-Protestant" distinguishes these churches from the Classical Protestant churches, especially to the degree they broke away from a Classical Protestant church.

2. Other Neo-Protestant Churches:  These are Christian churches founded since the eighteenth century which integrate the Unitarian tradition of the public lecture into their worship. Whereas Classical Protestant churches have well-defined liturgies, which may or may not include a sermon; *these* churches may not have a liturgy at all, and always have a kind of public lecture instead of a sermon, and may also have discussions of religious topics, magazine articles, etc., all typically bracketed by the singing of hymns. This is a common feature of all Neo-Protestant churches; these particular churches differ from the first group in NOT be break-away denominations of the Church of England. Examples of this type of Neo-Protestant denomination are Seventh-Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on.

3. Neo-Christian groups:  These are groups that are Christian, in one way or another, but they evolved completely independently of the Catholic and Protestant traditions, or have become too independent of any roots and that linear evolution to be considered Neo-Protestant. The oldest of these groups is probably the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as "Quakers." Most but not all Quakers identify themselves as Christians; there is no creed; there are no sacraments; there is no officiation at meetings of friends as the term is usually understood, etc. The other major Neo-Christian organisation, of course, is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, better known as "Mormons"-though that label includes a number of other related, small churchs, as well as the large LDS church.

NOW, from the perspective of any given organised religious faith itself, whether it calls itself Protestant or not is question of that organised faith itself. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, do not consider themselves to be Protestants because they believe they adhere to the oldest religion in the world -- that the first of Jehovah's Witnesses was Abel, son of Adam and Eve, who was killed by his brother Cain. Many Baptist church associations hold similar beliefs about themselves.

But THIS is supposed to be an encyclopedia the recounts real, historical facts. And the real historical fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses got started in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1876, when Charles Taze Russell happened to pass by an Adventist Church service one evening, decided to go inside, and thereafter found himself filled with the Spirit. The "Russellite Adventists" were soon born, with their "Watchtower" magazine; and they ultimately adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1931. That they claim Abel as the first Jehovah's Witness is a core belief of the faith, and should be recited as such. But it should NOT be put forward by this encyclopedia as though it were a literal and real fact.

Likewise, any idea that Baptist churches predate the Roman Catholic Church founded about the year 330 is a pure nonsense in terms of real history. If you're talking Anabaptists, its a Classical Protestant chruch. If you're talking English Baptists, you're looking at Neo-Protestants. That is the REAL history. What the religion says about itself in history, is a different matter.

(Rursus þhinx þe preceediŋ is so good þat it deserves an article: User:Rursus 10:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

-- 8 April 2006, 7:40 Pacific Daylight Time, San Francisco, California —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.200.116.195 (talk • contribs).

I definitely can sympathize with describing Landmarkism as something which some Baptists believe, both now and historically, but portraying it as truth is another animal entirely. We should be on guard for that sort of thing. Sighter Goliant 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It is an interesting socio-religious belief, but it is awfully terrible history. Eschew obfuscation 13:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of baptists
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)


 * 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)

Too traditional?
I'm a deacon (though we call it a board member) at my small Baptist congregation and have served as a delegate for Ohio in the American Baptist Churches / USA (which I believe is the third largest association of Baptists). I've been to many Baptist churches, and my father is a Baptist minister (D.Min). I find that the descriptions in here might make the denomination a little more 'stale' than my experience has shown it to be. For example, I've never seen a pulpit in the center of the stage, except in a few "ancient" Baptist churches. Those that have it haven't used it as the point of sermon. Our church is governed by the board, and the Pastor is only a spiritual leader, not an administrative one. This is also the style with most churches I'm exposed to, although sometimes the administrators *are* ordained ministers and paid positions. I'm also not used to the concept of a sermon lasting over 20-25 minutes.

Anyone else know where I'm coming from? The changes I'm imagining are far too big of an edit for me to take on personally.

Atchius 02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We must have traveled in very different circles. All of the Baptist churches of which I have been a member (also ABC / USA) have had a pulpit at the center of the stage, and I'd only consider one of these to be "ancient" (it was founded in the late 1700s). Most of the Baptist churches I've visited have also had this pulpit configuration. If I recall correctly, all of the Baptist churches I've belonged to have had the pastor serve in administrative dutes, in addition to the spiritual ones. My experience with sermon length is similar to yours--most don't go over 20 minutes. Only at the old-timey "revival meetings" have the sermons I've heard gone much longer, and often with more than one preacher (these were at churches not officially affiliated with any other Baptist organization, as far as I know). It's tempting to think of our own experiences as being representative, especially if they have been extensive, but there is apparently a lot of space for differences, even within a group of affiliated churches. Rohirok 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rohirok. There is a wide variety.  I have been a member of Independent Baptist churches (i.e., not affiliated with any association or governing body) for many years.  (I'm military, so I've been in several over the last 15 years).  In the church I'm in now, the pastor founded the church 27 years ago.  He is still the pastor and is very much the final authority for all matters, both administrative and spiritual.  That being said, the deacons (of whom I was one until only recently) vote on any financial decisions, and for "major" financial decisions the entire church has to vote.  As for sermons, the pulpit is in the center of the stage and the pastor preaches 30-40 minute sermons from it.  This church is pretty typical of the ones I have been member of.  Furthermore, most members of our church would consider it sacrilege to not have the pastor administratively lead the church, not preach from the pulpit, or preach less than 30 minutes.  That, too, is typical of the churches I've been in.
 * I'm not making moral judgement here - I have been a member of both Southern Baptist and ABC churches in the past. I'm just saying that not all Baptist churches are equal, although within a particular "type" they may be similar.  There is a wide range of church "personalities" that can be expected.  Roachmeister 14:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Removals
I just made a lot of edits and removals which I will try to explain below

Gold Dragon 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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

"Cracked" communion
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)


 * 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)

issues by anon
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)

Diversity
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)

Baptists amd Slavery
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Membership
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)

Additionally, I consider his contributions on conventions to be overly US-centric and biased against the SBC, which my baptist church is not a member of.

Gold Dragon 15:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

40% Versus 70%
From Worldwide Membership: "Today 40% of all Baptists reside in the United States, belonging to four major divisions"

or

From Autonomy of the local church: "Today 70% of all Baptists reside in the United States which participate in several associations."

Which is it?

70%
I think 70% is the correct figure, as shown in the world membership, where 36m out of 50m are in US. Please edit and change it to 70%. User:Bdebbarma


 * Sounds right then. I'll fix it unless someone already has.

N0! the figure is 40% America,60% the remains of the world. PLEASE review no American sources,by example world alliance.

Famous Baptists
Could somebody possibly move this to a list layout? It's confusing to read...

Atchius 02:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Percentage mismatch
The article first claims 40 of 90 million live in the US, then claims that over 70% live in the US. Whatever the correct number, these are obviously inconsistent.

did a checkup on the numbers
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)

Baptist World Alliance Statistics
please take a look at the BWA membership body directory and memberships on bwanet.org, you will find that without the membership of SBC itself the Baptists are 90 million plus.

--User:Bdebbarma

Geographic scope
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)

Citation request
Kindly give a citation for the statement "Baptist is the faster growing christian denomination after pentecostalism" Sounds like trumpet-blowing from some baptist!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.85.127.139 (talk • contribs).

Southern Baptist vs. Baptist
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)


 * 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).

What am I considered?
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)

A heretic. Unbiblical. Anti-Christ.

Good luck with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Related issues over at Baptist successionism article
If anyone watching this page would like to chime in or take a look, an IP (I suspect one of the editors formerly causing problems here) continues to make POV/OR edits at Baptist successionism. For more, go to Talk:Baptist successionism. It also pertains to the relevant section at this article (Baptists). And for what it is worth, I think this image should be removed from this article as OR/POV, too. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Call in the reinforcements! ROFL!  Of course, anyone who disagrees with you is "causing problems."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.31.48 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just you, IP70, for your rampant refusal to collaborate with other editors by first talking about the issue before making edits that others clearly have a problem with.  This is what us adults do when we disagree - we TALK it through.  I don't know how old you are, but I know how old you're acting, and it only has one digit.  When you actually want to join the rest of us and DISCUSS issues, let us know.Farsight001 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My real name is Mark Osgatharp, I live in Wynne, Arkansas, I'm 51 years old and I've been dealing with people of your character just long enough to know that the only way to "collaborate" with you is to knuckle under. I'm not doing it.  By the way, my previous offer for you to call me and get some eye-popping information on the Featley picture still stands.  My phone number is 870-588-6568 cell or 870-238-0911 home.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.38.126 (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't know me, and you certainly don't know what my character is. I doubt you have either the talent nor the training to read people even if you're speaking to them in person, and online removes 80% of what is used to read others.  Why don't you leave the psychology to the psychologists and do not only what you ought to do as a Christian, but what wikipedia policy also dictates you do, and assume good faith, instead of just concluding that anyone and everyone who disagrees with your edits is out to get you.  As for your name - I remember it, and I remember your account from the past and that you have already caused trouble enough to get your account blocked before. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mark_Osgatharp )  I would have hoped that you had learned from your poor behavior in the past and shaped up.  I can certainly tell you that, as of thus far, I do not see a change, and that is rather unfortunate.  The next step after the month block you received is, I believe, and indefinite block.  You can, in fact, collaborate with me, and with other editors.  I do not understand why you so quickly choose not to, though.  This is standard practice on wikipedia.  If you make an edit, and you are reverted, then before changing the article again, you come to the talk page and discuss your desired change with other editors.  Sometimes this can take upwards of a month.  Wikipedia does not care how long it takes.  It's not in a hurry.  But instead of doing this, and in doing so, collaborating with other editors, you have repeatedly and regularly simply re-reverted and angrily complained that we are trying to silence you or that we have bad attitudes or something similar.  This is not ok behavior on your part.
 * And your decision to produce your name and phone number and remove all anonymity is a rather blatant psychosocial attempt to puff yourself up and try to "internet intimidate" others. It is as if to say "come at me.  I'm not afraid."  Well, we don't want to come at you and we couldn't care less if you are afraid or not.  We just want to improve the article.  So how about we try that, ok?  Explain why you think the post is not OR, and that, thus, the OR tag should be removed.  I will mindfully read your explanation, and respond.  We will do this for a while until we come to an agreement, or, if we can't, request mediation.  Welcome to the way of wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk about playing psychologist! ROFL!  I don't think you are out to get me.  I think you are out to have your way and yours only with the Baptist articles.  I don't know you personally, but when I first started editing the Baptist articles I did try to discuss things and the bottom line was that you are your cronies were always and invariably right regardless.  So what is the point of pouring sand down a rat hole?  Again, my offer remains for you to call.  It has nothing to do with being afraid or not afraid (ROFL) - it is a matter of making truth known over against the modernist revision of Baptist history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Osgatharp (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I played psychologist because I AM a psychologist. Now grow up and discuss the issue first or lose your account for obvious poor behavior and crappy attitude, just like last time.  You want to make the truth known?  You have to play the game, which means actually following the rules, not expecting special treatment like a bratty child.Farsight001 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

request for some citations
There are several statements that have been tagged as needing citations. I have gathered them here so that they can be worked on: HokieRNB 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

RfC: Independent Baptist merge
Should Independent Baptist be merged here?

Survey

 * Merge - ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Independent Baptist covers a subset of Baptists that meet WP:N. Moreover, the group, while meeting N, is still a small minority of Baptists that can be covered in greater detail in the Independent Baptist article than is appropriate in this more broad article. If you think Independent Baptists is not notable, send that article to WP:AfD. Novaseminary (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - highly notable subsection, and quite different to, for example, Southern Baptists. StAnselm (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - The article has not established notability, and it's been a stub for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Independent Baptists are a significant feature of the Baptist world. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - specifically into the section named "Controversies that have shaped Baptists", as there is no material given in the stub article Independent Baptists that argues for any greater significance of, or indeed difference from, other schismatic sects of Baptism named in that section. yoyo (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Oppose but keep subarticle That section should mention the Independent Baptists; it doesn't. But it shouldn't mention them at greater length than the other denominations within Baptism, which would be undue weight - and most of them are just listed with no details except the issue on which they split. Is someone prepared to expand the section enormously? If not, this is a proposal to throw away information. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Independent article should be expanded, but not merged. Independent Baptist is as distinct a sub-type as Southern Baptists. Ltwin (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. It needs expanded with more sources to explain uniqueness from Southern Baptists. RobinBnn (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
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)
 * I don't see how it meets any of the requirements for notability at WP:NONPROFIT ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Google books give 1500 hits. See this book, for example. StAnselm (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Membership Statistics
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]


 * 1) 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)

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

"Seperatists" or "Dissenters"?
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)


 * 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)

Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one 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/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)

External links modified
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)

Definition of Baptist in first sentence
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)

Definition should not include Pentecostals
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)

Baptists and Child Abuse
Recently, User:Ernio48 deleted much hard work that was done on the above subject. It was mentioned that this could be placed on another page. That is certainly true and would be good to start an article on this matter. However, at the same time consistently allows for a few paragraphs on the main page and a link to an expanded article. See how it is done with two other major Christian denominations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church#Sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Handling_of_sexual_abuse_cases Thus I will restore this information to be consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again much hard work was deleted. This time by User:Alanscottwalker. While there were links to a commercial firm, which could be viewed in a wrong light, this has now been corrected. As far as original research, Alanscootwalker please review this article here:   The information posted on the atrocities happening in the Baptist religion is well documented and presented mainly as they appear in the news. If you wish legal papers, Please update it with such. That would be great if you would update this rather than delete it. Work with it, since this is a huge controversy taking place. Please do not delete such information but if you feel it doesn’t meet Wiki standards, please correct it. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the sourcing is terrible, the writing is advertisement/promotion/sensation and pov pushing. And, it’s as if it doesn’t understand the subject. It’s not at all about something that’s happened 'in the Baptist religion’, which is a phrase that makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Which source is terrible? What is advertising? If it is POV, Please help make it NPOV, instead of deleted it. What do you mean “it” doesn’t understand the subject? Which article is not about what is happening with the Baptist religion and its leaders? Instead of appealing to nice sounding words give us facts.  You did not give one piece of evidence where the aticle does what you claim it did. It appears what you are doing doesn’t make too much sense unless you also wish to sweep this issue under the rug.  This is a major controversy that is taking place and is encyclopedia worthy as is the article on Catholics (and JW’s) linked above.  Please do not delete it with appeals to “advertisement promotional” etc.  Show where it is wrong and why or better yet fix it. I will restore it since you did not give any evidence but only an appeal to how you personal named/called it. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did show where it is wrong, if you don’t understand promotion/advertising/sensation/sourcing, then you should not be writing the encyclopedia- “it” is the the content, which is terribly sourced and all the other things I mentioned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Alanscottwalker for your response. How do you wish to make this better?  Which quoted newspaper or agency is not a good source?  Which source in particular is terrible? Do you wish to replace the source with a better one or do you want me to?  I can see perhaps not using the law source however, they are also legal experts dealing with this issue.  I did delete the leading sentence since it may not have been as balanced as the article deserves.  How do you think we can make the information better?
 * First, find a broad array of academic sources on the issue; second, when writing about a present day issue in the Southern Baptist Convention go to that article, not here; third, don’t rely on commercial advertising; fourth, don’t present an opinion or news headline as if it means anything substantive; fifth, present the research in good sources, neutrally and in a dispassionate tone; sixth, don’t make predictions; sevnth, don’t combine sources to support your theses; eighth, never present one person(groups’) action/response as others’ action/response. (if I missed something, sorry, but the text/addition was so poor, and simply does not belong). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First thank you very much for being a lot more specific, that is very helpful though there is still some mind reading necessary to understand the reference(s) you might have in mind. However I have tried to address your concerns with an updated version. Peer review journals with articles that touch on this are now added. (It does appear to have a lot of references, so perhaps an adjust can be made here) Second, The issue is not limited to SBC and the article should have made that clear, so not sure why you came to that inaccurate conclusion. Third,  There is no commercial advertising and link to the legal expert on this issue has been removed.  Fourth, news articles if from a respectable source are indeed great for quoting factual information. Yes, it would be better to have specific quotations however we must keep in mind that this is for a main web page. Thus you will find more or less general claims here and if we start another page it can be more specific. So not sure your point here either.  Do you not think Baptist clergy are being accused, and arrested for child abuse? The references of news articles supports this thought. Fifth,  I am not aware of any sources that are not good in the section under question.  Which source is poor? Sixth, Not sure what you mean. If you are taking about the sentence that says, “Since much of this is unfolding, only time will tell how this shapes the Baptist religion.” Not aware that that is a predication.  What do you think it is predicting? It is a statement that only time will tell. However, please feel free to remove it with a better explanation. The reason for the sentence, was to fit it under the subject of the subheading.  Do you think it would be better to have a new subheading instead?  As far as your other two concerns can you please give specific examples of what you are talking about?  Or better yet please feel free to improve the section yourself.  For example,  you can place all the references under separate numbers rather than how it was before. But once again your comments do not have the clarity needed to fully address your issues. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The references you cited only pertain to the SBC, not Baptists as a whole. As such, your section belongs in that article, not this one. The link to the legal expert was replaced to a Wikipedia article that’s written like an advertisement for him, which makes me doubt your motives. Yes, Baptist clergy are being accused of abuse, but that is an issue specific to the SBC, not all Baptists. “Since much of this is unfolding, only time will tell how this shapes the Baptist religion” is written like an opinion piece and not an encyclopedia entry, which I assume is what Alanscottwalker was referring to. LitWindow (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ”Only pertain to SBC?” How did you come up with that? As much as you keep saying that this is a SBC thing, it is not. The references, such as in the journals do not state or single out the SBC but Baptists. (For example, on the very first footnote where 3 references are given there is only one that deals with the largest denomination of Baptists the other two do not. Also, one more example, Fernando Maldonado, who is facing 23 counts of child molestation was the Baptist minister of the “New Hope Bible Fellowship” at 68 Morello Avenue in Martinez, CA.  As shown on the SBC website this is not a SBC church.-http://www.sbc.net/churchsearch/churches-near-me.asp There are only two SBC in the city. http://www.sbc.net/church/3860-94553/second-baptist-church and http://www.sbc.net/church/3747-94553/concord-korean-baptist-church) Being the largest body in the Baptist religion it only makes sense that many of crimes committed will involved the SBC.  However, this is not just a SBC issue and the references verify that.  Some of the clergy are not even in the USA where the SBC is. Moving on you are now not only questioning my motive but also an article with an internal link that has been around for over 2 years!!!!  ( I deleted the references to his commercial site but come on, this is linked to another site within this encyclopedia) Do you see what you are doing?  You question not just this addition to this site, my motive, but now the whole other article on the famous expert lawyer who deals with this every day. Never should we shy away from linking an article with another Wiki article. (It appears you would want to delete that article too)  He is very famous as the website highlights. I have never touched or edited that page but it would not and should not matter. (Just because I am not signed in doesn’t mean I am not a regular contributor to articles. Not a sock puppet though) You seem to indicate along with :Alanscottwalker that this information is in the wrong place and can be in the SBC article.  If is is shown, which the references do proof, that it involves Baptists as a whole, why do you continue to oppose its inclusion? Since your comments are not accurate, I will return the encyclopedia information to its proper place. However, I will adjust the last sentence since it appears to perhaps not read like “an encyclopedia entry.”138.97.161.145 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your paragraphs remain POV, OR and regularly unsourced, when it’s not advertisement, and sensationalism. You obviously have no consensus for this, so it does not go here per WP:ONUS. It makes no sense to talk about the New Hope Bible Fellowship nor the SBC, here. – Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any one can claim something is unsourced. Which statement needs a source?  Do you wish to fix it to the correct standard? What do you mean it makes no sense to talk about individual bodies within the Baptist movement?  This article regularly mentions the SBC.  I mentioned the NHBF since it is not part of the SBC.  The wrong claim both you and the other deleter continue to wrongly make is that all the information on Child Abuse is about the SBC. The facts show it is not.  138.97.161.145 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If your section only focuses on the SBC and NHBF (and only sources regarding the SBC were cited), it belongs in those articles, not here. LitWindow (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It’s obviously POV and doesn’t belong in this article, since it has nothing to do with Baptist beliefs or history. Even the Catholic Church article only has two paragraphs devoted to a child abuse scandal much, much bigger than any Baptist controversies. LitWindow (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been updated to include the SBC response to the issue. Thus making it more balanced, endeavoring to present it in a NPOV format. This doesn’t imply that they are the spokesman for all (the article makes that clear already) but that the largest organization within the Baptists are doing something about it. It appears you must be wishing to sweep this under the rug.  This is a huge issue.138.97.161.145 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also (User:Litwindow) Please help present the information in a more balanced way if that is your issue with it rather than delete it. The fact that you delete appears to me that you like at least one other person do not wish this to be known.  However, this can only help our Children be protect not hurt them. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you’re making it clear that your intention isn’t to present reliable or accurate information, but to attack Baptism without a proper understanding of the situation. The section was written as though Baptists have a structure similar to the Catholic Church, which is false and makes it appear that an issue specific to the SBC is affecting all Baptists. LitWindow (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL without a proper understanding. No, I understand what is going on. Your expressions indicated that you are the one that didn’t understand. eg. You said “Baptists don’t have a central organization” and deleted a whole paragraph that had much research in it. However, not only was there no claim of this the paragraph said the exact opposite.  I will quote what you deleted namely that Baptists are “Without a central agency.” This is an example to show that you have not taken the necessary time to even be able to accurately access this information.  Based on this alone it appears you probably should not even edit this.  one of the basic things is “Don’t remove negative/critical text from an article.” -[] In addition, I do wish accurate information and reliable that is why I ask for help in any area that is lacking. To delete the whole thing is not only unprofessional but seems to highlight your motive especially when you didn’t even read or understand what you deleted.  Very unprofessional. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I obviously read what the section you wrote said. You used terminology such as “the Church” and “the organization” with the implication that Baptists as a whole are implicated (since you’re editing the Baptists article), when in fact this is specific to *one* Baptist organization, and there is no central Baptist Church or organization. LitWindow (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, the information is about Baptists as a whole and not one denomination within the Church/Religion. (The references show this) Next, the term “organization” should be corrected, so thank you for highlighting this issue. I can see how this created confusion. Sorry about that. Next, 'Church” would be capitalized to stand for the Baptist Religion as a whole. However, I do not really see that term in the section that you deleted. Regardless, I can see this being an area to correct, and not a reason to delete a whole section or paragraph.  The kind thing is to correct a point where it lacks precision. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did check your references, and they in fact are only discussing abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention, not Baptists as a whole. This issue isn’t relevant to the Baptists article. LitWindow (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not delete all this hard work. It can only help to protect our children. If you feel it is POV please correct that sentence and do not delete the whole thing because we don’t like it or are uncomfortable with it. As mentioned for the third time now a few paragraphs on this issue is acceptable on the main page of an article. ( see the two large Christian Denominations linked above that have it on their main page.) 138.97.161.145 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, see WP:RGW and WP:ONUS, this is not the right place to discuss an issue in the Southern Baptist Convention, which is a different subject than Baptist, and we are not here, to commercially promote law firms, or present a headline as neutral presentation, or present someone’s response as other people’s response, there simply is no one “organization”. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are trying to get at. The SBC information on handling of sexual abuse was added to help present a more balanced article.  It shows the steps that some churches are taking to deal with this issue.  Before it only presented the problem but did not show any attempt on the Church for a solution.  With this inclusion it shows that the dominate body is endeavoring to correct this problem.  As far as your internal links once again this is well documented and verified by reliable news agencies.  Which agency do you have an issue with?  New Your Times? Baptist News? You keep crying out the same thing but seem to lack specific evidence except for the one law firm (not law firms as you mentioned). 138.97.161.145 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Dominate”, what? There are millions and millions more Baptists that are not SBC, than are. So, go to that article. I have also laid out what I find problematic in your use of sectarian sourcing, your bizarre presentation of a headline, as if it has meaning, and your use of commercial advertising. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no single Baptist denomination, abuse scandals should be covered in specific Baptist denomination articles. If the sources cover the SBC, the information should be covered in the SBC article. Ltwin (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and the OP, also does not understand that Baptist is not a religion, nor are leaders in one denomination, leaders in another denomination, nor are leaders in one congregation, leaders in another congregation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have better terminology then by all means use it don’t delete it since you do not like it. SBC is considered the largest denomination within the Baptist Faith/Religion/movement/Church (not church). Your reasoning is very shallow.  (Ps What do you call a minister that takes the leader? A leader or a follower?)  To continuously deleting it will claiming, “ unsourced” etc. is very unprofessional.  I have ask for evidence and you have still not given one source that is not authoritative.  Which sentence needs more support?  IT is obvious that you do not wish to deal with this in an intelligent manner but wish to sweep it under the rug with now ad hominem attacks on me rather than on the information. IF you need scholarly support to verify my terminology i can do that but it is clear what you do with things that don’t agree with your personal ideas. 138.97.161.145 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, if you don’t understand our objections but our objections remain (and no, there is nothing 'unprofessional’ about unsourced, see WP:V). You are trying to shoehorn POV and OR. No doubt, people connected with Baptist churches are arrested and accused of various things every-day. That does not mean it goes in this article (see, WP:ONUS).   There is nothing like what you have written in reliable source encyclopedia (see, ) which we look to for matters undue. (see, WP:TERTIARY) To illustrate, today is Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in the United States, and he was a Baptist minister and he has been accused of many things but, that does not mean they belong, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Noun
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)
 * 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)

Controversies that have shaped Baptists - sexual abuse
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/investigations/abuse-of-faith/

This issue definitely should be included, unless there is sinful guilt and cover-up.

Stating that the issue is prevalent in only one congregation is delusional. As least the catholics are slowly acknowledging it.

Or ... maybe it has not shaped baptists, as they are still in denial?

baden k. 200.68.143.10 (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Church is a single institution. There is not a single Baptist denomination. There are many Baptist denominations. Specific episodes of sexual abuse should be handled on the relevant pages of the specific local church or denomination being discussed. Ltwin (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So, it looks like this article may be much more appropriate, "The epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/05/31/feature/the-epidemic-of-denial-about-sexual-abuse-in-the-evangelical-church/?utm_term=.bf72c52dc895


 * 187.217.195.24 (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC) baden k.


 * Wikipedia has an article on this at Sexual abuse scandal in Southern Baptist churches. That article doesn't mean that sexual abuse cannot also be mentioned here at this article. If this meets due weight, these sources could be cited to mention this, but that will have to be discussed, ideally through a specific, actionable proposal. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Although that is about just one body, in one country, in the much larger constellation of Baptist organizations.Dgndenver (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Perpetuity and succession view
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)


 * 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)

Anabaptist influence view
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)


 * 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)

Only Evangelical?
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)
 * ✅. —Confession0791 talk 21:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Origin of the name/label as opposed to faith and practice
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)

This is giving wrong info
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)