[edit] Sola Scriptura contrasted?
Prima scriptura seems most unlike any Baptist distinctive that I have heard of. Where is this in debate among Baptists?Brian0324 14:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Samuel Sharpe
Does Samuel belong here? Granted that he is historically significant - but did he develop or advance the Baptist movement?Brian0324 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
CBF is a splinter group of SBC and does not belong here as one of the major groups of Baptists. Certainly not at the exclusion of Primitive Baptists or Independent Baptists (for example). CBF is too small to warrant mention.
- I disagree. The CBF Article would disagree. Just because you do not feel something is important it may not be worth throwing out. By size yes it is smaller than the SBC but So it the entire LDS Church but they are a significant movement as is the Episcopal Church USA which is 1/6 the size of the SBC. They are more than a splinter group in that they exist beyond former SBC Churches and members. As a movement they have gained steam and joined the Baptist World Alliance a body which shortly thereafter the SBC Left. I put them back. And I sign my user name. M-BMor 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per discussion readded CBF if you are going to remove a group at least discuss first. M-BMor 03:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, Not trying to over-ride the above conversation, but this template is getting large. If the numbers at Baptists in the United States are correct, then there are only six groups that can claim over 1 million members. I have changed the template to show the six largest groups. I do not personally think that these are the six best or the perfect representation of the phrase "Baptist", but the template has to have some scope. The CBF is among many smaller groups, that if included, will make the template too large to be helpful.Brian0324 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm cool with rationale. Just not "they are insignificant" ... when it comes to judging size they are a tough one ... 700,000 individual members and 1900 congregations ... the 700,000 number may nt include all the members of those congregations as the CBF only counts individual contributors etc. it could be higher or lower they are fairly fluid. But I can live with your analysis. M-BMor (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Independent Fundamental Baptist
Anyone think that Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) or Independent Baptist belongs here? Despite being called "independant", it is quite a large, contraversial and like-minded movement. BURNyA 22:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conservative Baptist?
We might want to add the Conservative Baptist (CB) to the list. 68.116.99.140 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reworked the template
Here are some things I did to the template box:
- I changed the top logo back to the baptism scene, instead of the large artsy drop of water someone had added
- I changed "Strict Baptist" to "Particular Baptist" as the latter is the specific, historic term that contrasted "General Baptist"
- I removed prima scriptura, as Baptists hold to sola scriptura
- I added "priesthood of all believers"
- I put the "pivotal figures" into chronological order
- I changed "largest associations" to "prominent associations"
I hope these are helpful and useful.
TuckerResearch (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Associations
I removed the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland as it is a small association and does not seem to have had much of a theological impact on Baptists on the whole.
BUT, I do have an idea.
Instead of a list of associations here on the template, perhaps a link to a page that contains ALL Baptist associations and conventions we can cobble together from Wikipedia?
I think that this is the way to go.
TuckerResearch (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
To this end I have re-worked the template again:
- I moved some things around the "Doctrinal Distinctives" section, adding some things, etc.
- I removed the annoying list of "Baptist associations," which began as "largest" and I changed to "prominent"
The latter is, I think, better this way. Why? "Largest associations" is pointless, because associations with a large number of congregants might have had little historical importance, while "prominent associations" might solve this problem, every Baptist from every little association across the world would think that theirs is "prominent." So, I think that this solves the problem.
TuckerResearch (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Contemporary figures
I removed the "contemporary figures," because I think it will lead to problems and innumerable edits. If we should put contemporary figures on there, we should decide first here who to put up. For instance, the editor first put up John Piper. Okay, maybe, but he's uber-Calvinist. As an Arminian Baptist, I'd demand Robert Picirilli or Leroy Forlines be added. Then people would add others and there would be grand disagreements. Last month, someone put Jack Hyles in the "pivotal figures" section. Now, some people might class him a "contemporary figure," I sure as heck wouldn't. The list of "contemporary figures" could be endless. Also, I think it's a good idea to keep the template as slender as possible.
TuckerResearch (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] The new box is horrid
User:Chromenano, your edits to the Babtist template are, in my opinion, absolutely horrible. Everything about it. Colors, sections, size, "notable people," etc. I mean, really? Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are significant Baptists? This is why I removed "Contemporary figures" from the template's previous incarnation. Who decides who is "notable" and a good enough "Baptist." I mean, wouldn't Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter be "Notable people" who are Baptists? Does anyone else agree that the previous template was better? Formatted better and looked better? TuckerResearch (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think this temp has taken a stylistic turn for the worst. It was easier to navigate before every section became autocollapsed. What is the inclusion criteria for "notable people"? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's one vote! TuckerResearch (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm already reverting the image change, since there's no indication that the baptism in File:Woman baptised in Benin.jpg is even Baptist. And how do we distinguish between "Notable people" and "Pivotal people"? +Angr 01:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted back to old template box
Wikipedians, User:Chromenano, and all,
Sorry, Chromenano, but your radical changes to the Baptist template box have gone too far. You have made the template box unwieldy and hard to use.
- The collapsing sections are unhelpful.
- You added several of these collapsing sections, making it unwieldy.
- You made the "Doctrine" section so huge as to be unhelpful, and added several things that cannot be considered typically Baptist, such as:
- "Varying beliefs," which is covered in other sections
- Predestination, Arminianism, Calvinism, which is covered in the sections "General," "Strict," and "Reformed" - adding a subset of Calvinism "Concept," pointing to Predestination (Calvinism), is redundant
- "Doctrine of separation" is ably covered in the "Church and State" section under "doctrine"
- "Eschatology" - there is no such thing as a Baptist eschatology
- "Spiritual gifts" - this section, and its two subsets have no use in being in a Baptist template box
- The debate on "Bible versions" and the "King James Only movement" shouldn't be in a Baptist infobox either, as it is not a Baptist topic
- Adding a separate collapsible section of "Baptist confessions" makes the template box as a whole cluttered, and people will want to add their particular confession to the box, besides "Confessions" is included in the "Doctrine" section
- You added "Other pivotal people" to the "Pivotal people" collapsible section, which links to List of Baptists, which just links to everyone on Wikipedia who was a Baptist! This is silly!
- You added notable people - as mentioned elsewhere on this talkpage, I removed such a section from a previous box because who is notable? For instance, I don't think Jack Hyles or Jesse Jackson are really Baptists, much less good ones, much less "notable" ones - and what criteria do you use in saying Billy Graham is an evangelist but not a pastor?
- Again, to this collapsible box you added a link to List of Baptists, which lists almost everyone who is a Baptist on Wikipedia. This is silly and redundant!
- I removed the "subdenomination" section from the previous incarnation of the template box because people would argue left and right on which ones should be listed - why Baptist Union of Great Britain instead of Nigerian Baptist Convention? The way I had it was best.
- And "Organisations" is a British spelling. But this is a minor quibble.
- The whole "Education" collapsible box makes the box too cluttered. If someone writes an article on Baptist education, or compiles one list, we can add it to the template box (it would go well with "Baptist missions," if that article or list exists).
All things considered, I replaced this cluttered, horrid mess with the more manageable box. I changed it a bit, and I don't mind if you modify it slightly. But, of those who went to the talkpage, and I admit it was only two, plus me makes three, I think there is a "consensus" that your newer template box was inferior to the old one.
TuckerResearch (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and Donatism? I removed that too. Why not add Albigenses? TuckerResearch (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree. Thanks for going back to mostly the way it was.Brian0324 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Four votes! TuckerResearch (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
