Talk:Baptismal regeneration

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rewrite needed[edit]

This entire article needs to be redone, probably from scratch.

"Baptismal regeneration" is a theological perjorative term, often applied by those who do not hold to any facet of the term, to those who practice any sort of baptism or perform any sort of teaching disliked by those using the term. I believe the article is under sourced, makes too much use of primary vs. secondary sources, and has too many tags to be considered a reasonable article.

If anything, I'd prefer to stub the article and start from there, rather than trying to save this. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such is a "theological pejorative term" and that is the most important aspect of the concept. Your comment is two years old, and no one has provided any counter argument. I believe that the term has never been used as self-descriptive by anyone who claims to believe in it. I've found no exceptions, and if no one points out some, I'll alter the article, especially in the first sentence to clarify that the term exists to provide a POV and is non-neutral. Carltonh (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While current usage of the term may be mainly perjorative, it has a respectable history and was certainly used positively in the Church of England in the mid 1860's by theologians who defended the position. I am away from home at the moment and will supply references towards the end of this month. It should be kept in mind that, like many other theological terms, its precise meaning varies between authors.Jpacobb (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of the Lead In[edit]

I recently made a fairly extensive edit to the lead of the article. It was in response to a series of edits by user 65.13.226.157. Rightly or wrongly, they struck me as introducing a point of view to the introduction. The sentence that particularly caught my eye was:

"It is the historic and ecumenical belief and practice of the Christian church, and has been rejected only by those whom the church regards as sects."

That's a very strong statement.

Jclemens reverted my edits, noting in his comment that they blurred the lines between the concept of "baptismal regeneration" and the approach taken by the Restoration Movement. He's probably right - I'm more familiar with that approach, and have been working on the articles associated with that movement recently.

I've gone back and taken out the one sentence I mentioned above, and left the rest alone for now. I do think it would be helpful if someone who's more familiar with the issue could check the changes from this entire round of edits. EastTN (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that edit. We need someone to sit down with a bunch of systematic theology texts and hash through the mess, but I agree that part needed to go. If I'd had a bit more time, I probably should have left that part out when I reverted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separating Baptismal Regeneration from Necessity of Baptism[edit]

This article seems to conflate the concepts of baptismal regeneration and necessity of baptism. I intend a major rewrite to separate the two. Stop me now if you problem with that. I’ll try to fill in the citations that are requested in the article. Abramius (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's wise? "Baptismal regeneration" is mostly just a POV slam on those who endorse necessity of baptism. It might be better to write an article on that doctrine, and redirect baptismal regeneration to a section on criticism of the necessity doctrine. But no, I certainly wouldn't stand in your way of doing what you propose. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Jclemens sounds eminently reasonable. Esoglou (talk) 06:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in the first section, there are many variations under the label of "baptismal regeneration" and I suspect that trying to separate regeneration and necessity will produce more complications than clarity.Jpacobb (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Are sometimes alleged"[edit]

You don't need a work of scholarship to show that the allegation has been made. The allegation may be rubbish, but it has been made. The cited sources are more than enough to show that it has been made. Even one of them would be sufficient.

I think Jclemens is right in saying that "baptismal regeneration" is mostly just a POV slam on those who endorse necessity of baptism. But as long as the present article remains, it seems necessary to give examples of the use of that POV slam. Those who use it may even be judged to be ignoramuses quite unreliable about theological matters, but they do use the slam. The cited sources reliably show that they do. Esoglou (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, someone else has complained that primary sources inappropriately, and they're right. We aren't allowed to use a bevy of primary sources, string them together, and say "Look, this happens". That's called synthesis. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since no statement by a secondary source that says the allegation is made is as clear a demonstration as even one single source (no need for a "bevy") that actually makes the allegation. However, if no other editor agrees with me, I will of course yield. Esoglou (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are the only ones who are allowed to pick examples if examples are needed. We're officially clueless. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you want to go read WP:NOR again, I think. We can only use primary sources when they're reliably published, and somehow I don't think WP:RSN will agree that Angelfire is a reliable publisher. :-) Jclemens (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it any better as reworded? For my part, I see no difference between citing the writings, on the one hand, of David J. Stewart and Jim R. Everett for what they say, and, on the other hand, of Douglas A. Foster for what he says. Esoglou (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Expansion of Article[edit]

I have rewritten the first paragraph of the lede in an attempt to make it a little more accurate and shed light on why this subject is a tricky one. The material on R-C has been put into a separate section; I have done what I can to provide some sort of references to the Orthodox position (I hope someone else can expand and improve this section). I have provided a properly referenced Anglican section - it is longer than the previous ones for two reasons: (i) The subject has been more of a "high profile" one at times & (ii) I know more about it. The "Criticisms" section is untouched as I cannot see how to make improvements, partly because the criticisms seem to be based on an inadequate and over simplified understanding of what the groups which hold the the doctrine really believe.Jpacobb (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of this Article[edit]

Quality additional material is always welcome on Wikipedia, but I wonder whether some of the material added to the Anglican section would be better placed in the main article Anglican sacraments rather than here since this is an "overview article". Jpacobb (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther, ips edits[edit]

In this edit, an ip is trying to insert new content discussing Martin Luther's beliefs. His wording begins "However... Clearly..." and goes on to make claims which contradict the rest of the paragraph. There is no source provided in the new content, and this sort of wording is generally inappropriate in wikipedia's voice. I'm opening up discussion here in hopes that the ip will discuss the issue and provide a source which explicitly says what he'd like to include. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look[edit]

Finally you pedants get it, and are going to allow TRUTH to be written on this your sanctuary of sanctimoniousness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.205.228 (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Baptismal regeneration. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to do a better job with the citations under Early Church[edit]

Under the Early Church header of the History section, several Fathers are listed who "connected following Christ in baptism with salvation." This is all well and good, but the two cited sources are a Catholic Answers article (!) and what appears to be an apologetic work written by a Lutheran. This doesn't mean the statement is wrong, but it would be much better to opt for either reliable scholarship to back up the statement, or at least directly cite the works that the CA article quotes rather than relying on sources that are explicitly advocating for Baptismal regeneration. ChickenJockey21 (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]