Talk:Primitive Baptists

Calvinism

I have a bias, as I have been raised in the Primitive Baptist Faith, but I would like it to be noted that the doctrine Primitive Baptists adher to is strictly what is listed in the King James Version Bible. Notable written works include the Articles of Faith, which is a list of ten of the foundational beliefs of the Primitive Baptists. It is true, four of the five Calvinist points are a part of our faith, but the "Perseverance of the Saints" is NOT a belief of the Primitive Baptists. However, the "Preservation of the Saints" IS a belief of the church, where the children, or elect, of God cannot fall from grace, even though they may act as if they are not saved. Perseverance is the belief that those who do not behave as children of God are therefore not children of God and can fall from the grace of God, which contradicts Romans 8:35-39. Calvinists also believe in a Double Predestination, where God foreordained a people for Heaven and a people for Hell. Primitive Baptists believe in simply the predestination of the elect to Heaven. I simply wished to clarify those points, as it is insulting to our faith to be called a Calvinist, and we explictly charge our preachers and licentiates (men who are given license to preach in the pulpit without the title of Elder) to LEAVE the church if they introduce Calvinist doctrine into the church. Another distinct practice is the titles of the church. The head of the church is Elder, an ordained minister that meets the credentials listed in I Timothy 3:1-7 (which, according to the statement, "the husband of one wife", is a man, not a woman). The Elder is charged with feeding the church spiritually and speaking the true word of God, among various other tasks. The next office is that of Deacon, as listed in I Timothy 3:8-13. Deacons manage the affairs of the church and assist the Elder in his duties, and they are also men. Another office, though not listed in the Bible, is that of Songleader, which is a man that pitches the music and keeps the beat and tempo of the music. Members of the church refer to each other with the title of either "Brother" or "Sister", as we believe that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve, and that as we were adopted into the family of Christ we are related to one another. The biblical reference to this practice is found in I Timothy 5:1-2. Elders are in fact paid by the church, and if the membership is large enough, they can be full time ministers. However, it is not against the Bible to have a secular job. Song Service is typically 30 minutes long, and is entirely a capella. We read music from the Old School Hymnal, although there is another approved hymnal entitled the Primitive Baptist Hymnal. We use music that is similar to that of Sacred Harp, but our song services are not in the style of sacred harp. It is normally four-part harmony (soprano, bass, alto, tenor) and everyone participates. We use something called to Solfege scale and we read shape notes. We also use the moving Do, where the songleader can disregard a key signiture in favor of pitching based on the limitations of the congregation. We have Singing Schools, where anyone is welcome to learn our method of singing and to improve our manner of singing so that we may better worship God. Known singing schools include Harmony Highlands Singing School of Jasper, Alabama and Harmony Plains Singing School of Cone, Texas. For more information, here is a link for Harmony Plains: http://www.harmonyplains.com/ and for Harmony Highlands: http://newantiochpbc.org/wordpress/?feed=rss2&tag=harmony-highlands-singing-school Many people have issue with the fact that women hold no offices in the church, but I have found it to be right and pleasing before God. Women still participate in the church, by being helpmeets to their husbands, and by caring for the members of the church as well as those who are not in the church. We do not believe it to be unfair or unbiblical to not have women hold office, as it is also said in the Bible that wives should be submissive to their husbands, but they ARE NOT subservient. The husband is the head of the household, but he is not a totaltarian dictator. Children are also expected to attend ALL of a church service, which typically ranges from being 45 minutes to an hour long. If necessary, the parents may remove the child from the service teach them proper behavior if they interrupt service, but typically, children remain for all of the service. A few of our other distinct practices include closed communion and full immersion (baptism). Communion is the practice of partaking of the red wine and unlevened bread and participating in feet washing. We serve only wine, and never grape juice, and communion is closed to outsiders. Participants can only be those of like faith and order. Full immersion is representative of the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ, and you are considered a member only if you have been fully immersed by a licensed elder. We believe in saved by the grace of God, and nothing else. We also believe that children of God can be anyone from other faiths and nationalities, and God has children from every nation, kindred and tongue. We don't believe in the practice of confession or acceptance. This is all the information I can provide at the moment, but if you want to learn more, my advice is to come to a church and see for yourself what it is like. Countess Butterfly (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countess Butterfly (talk • contribs) 02:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Old talk

User 65.40.99.105 made two edits, which appear to be POV. These edits eliminate links to two kinds of Primitive Baptists - absoluters and universalists - and leave the links pretty much representative of one type. I think this must be point-of-view related and therefore a bad edit. I have added the links back. - Rlvaughn 01:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Though I added back the links, someone else removed them and added this note: "rv linkspam 'cleverly' hidden as 'rv POV edits". Would someone please explain why these particular links are "linkspam"? It appears curious to me that external links that present the viewpoints of certain types of Primitive Baptists mentioned in the article have been left, while external links that present other views have been edited out.?? That seems point of view related to me, but perhaps I just don't understand. I'll be glad for someone to explain. The "Beebe" link explains the absolute predestinarian PB doctrine from one of its 19th century proponents. The Remnant link gives access to one of their periodicals. The other link gives info on the Primitive Baptist Universalists, also mentioned in the article. If there are better links that can be provided, I'm all for it. But if these are being edited because someone only wants one view of Primitive Baptists linked, there is something rotten in Denmark. - Rlvaughn 04:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I may have been hasty in removing the links; sorry! The only excuse I can offer is the point I made in the edit note: adding links with 'revert POV edits' is a trick used by some ...less savory characters. I don't really have enough expertise on this subject to say that the links in question represent major sources of information that can't reasonably be represented within Wikipedia itself; I'll have to take your word on it.

I do think that external links should be stronlgy discouraged in general, though. If there is useful information on the referenced pages the first reaction should be "let's write about it in the article", not "let's turn Wikipedia into a link farm". If I buy an encyclopedia from a book shop, I wouldn't expect every entry in it to read "no information on this subject here; go to a library to find out about this".

If by the "...because someone only wants one view..." remark you mean that I might want to promote some fraction within some church, you can rest easy. My view of religions in general is that squabbling over points of doctorine within any religion is like fighting over what color of eggs the Easter Bunny likes the best. I'm the common infidel pagan enemy against whom they all can unite! :-) Weregerbil 12:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Weregerbil. When I spoke of someone wanting only one view, I had in mind the original editor. I wasn't sure what your reasoning was. I'm not sure the links are "major sources of information", but the problem with some of the more elusive religious bodies in that currently there is very little online information at all. I am in general agreement with you on the idea of having too many links. Plus, I think this is something that has kind of been modified in our thinking as Wikipedia has grown. I've been on awhile and sometimes find that when I do things the way I once did, they can be out of step with the most current Wikipedia ideas of style, etc. But since a Wikipedia article is a living thing on which many individuals colloborate, my opinion is that early in the life of an article, adding several links can prove helpful to future editors. They also give folks a way to check the validity of information. One problem is that often as an article grows, the links also grow and grow and grow. As an article grows, the links should actually diminish as we make the article "tighter". Just my thoughts. Thanks again. - Rlvaughn 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Sovereign Grace website because : 1. The link was broken. 2. If it had worked I suspect it would have linked to the Sovereign Grace Baptist website, which although having similar beliefs to those of PBs, is not a Primitive Baptist denomination. I hope I did not act in haste. I have tried that link several times over a period of days and nothing seems to be coming up.

Amity, I'm adding back the Sovereign Grace website. It is working now; and though Sovereign Grace often means similar but not Primitive Baptist, in this case it is a Primitive Baptist website. I believe it is in some way be connected with Lexington Primitive Baptist Church and Eld. Michael Gowens. - Rlvaughn 13:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also added mention of _A Portion for the Singers_ in the Sources section, and linked to the shape note listing, since there was a mention of acapella singing which I thought could be elaborated for the curious. Of course other types of singing are practiced in PB churches across the country as well. amity150

limited predestinarians

I altered the section on limited predestinarians to read:

"some churches among this group are still very evangelistic"

since despite the evangelistic work in the Philipines, etc., many old line limited predestinarians view such efforts as an aberration and a departure from historic practice. I don't know if statistically the qualifier "some" might justifiably be changed to "many" or even "most" or not, but certainly not "all."

Also on a related note, considering the categorization of this discussion as relating to "Calvinism", should the article contain some discussion of the widespread PB contention that Primitive Baptist doctrine is NOT in fact Calvinistic, and what the points of difference to Calvin's classic TULIP doctrine are understood to be? Again, how widespread is this issue? Adding a discussion of church organization, lack of central organization, plus perhaps a representation document of Articles of Faith would help to clarify what PBs believe.

amity150

I edited out the "unsalaried ministers". I've been a primitive baptist my entire life and my dad is a primitive baptist minister. We pay our ministers, maybe not as well as we should but they are paid. I changed it to family style worship since this is a practice of the primitive baptist. If that is not liked it can be edited as well but I would really appreciate "unsalaried ministers" being left out. It is simply not true. Thanks. Kitchec

My interpretation of a "salaried minister" is one who 'contractually' agrees to a specific amount of money or salary with the church to be paid on a set schedule. Primitive Baptist Elders are not "salaried ministers" but they are paid as the church sees fit or can afford and this doesn't constitute a contract for a salary, so the label, "unsalaried ministers". I too have been a Primitive Baptist all my life as well as my parents and grand-parents. In all that time, we have never known a Primitive Baptist church to "salary" their ministers. 'Unsalaried ministers' should remain but be more clearly explained. Randy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.13.152 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many links?

Is it possible that we are adding too many individual church links to the article? I believe that many of these can be reached from some of the original external links that were given. We need some kind of guideline, I suppose, to guide in link choices rather than to just keep adding and adding more of them. Thoughts? - Rlvaughn 21:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get any feedback on this question, but I have removed all the individual church links. If someone wants to make a case for adding some of them back, it can be done here. There are many individual Primitive Baptist church web sites, and we could just continue to multiply links here. But that doesn't really add anything to the article, does it? It seems like the links we have left give a fair representation of the various types of Primitive Baptists, and if we find some type has been left out, let's look for a representative link for them. - Rlvaughn 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Primitive baptist = Regular Baptist?

This article lists Regular Baptist among "other names by which Primitive Baptists are known." Are they really the same thing? If so, the two articles should be merged. If not, the text calling them equivalent should be altered. DanB†DanD 18:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding does "Primitive Baptist = Regular Baptist", I agree that association ought to be removed. I am a life long PB and PB elder and know of no current association between these two distinct denominations. There was some fellowship between the two denominations after the anti-missionary split but this was very minor. Perhaps it is because of some fellowship between the two plus percieved similarities that has led to confusion about them being one and the same.--Iakobos1970 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Undid large edit

Psalm25 edited out many links and also sourced content with a generic description...He also removed all subcategory information. His edit has been reversed. --68.159.145.41 (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Religious organizations founded in 1832, R.O. in North America

Respectfully, both categories are false...

Primitive Baptists were not founded in 1832, they were simply Baptists who did not modernize their doctrine and practice with the rest of the Baptist family. That is why they are named "Old School" or "Primitive Baptists"

Also, there are Primitive Baptist churches in countries other than ones found in North America. There are PB Churches in the Philippines, Tanzania, Kenya, and India, as well as ongoing work in other lands such as Russia. To categorize them simply as a North American organization is false. --68.159.133.167 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I forgot to mention this in my list of edits that need to be made to this page. I appreciate that you recognize Primitive Baptist origins and locations. In fact, I am well aquainted with those who are traveling to Kenya and Tanzania this coming Tuesday and with one Elder Gus Harter, who worked in the Philippines for about 10 years. Also, an elder who is a songwriter has recenty written a song, Ungrateful Heart, using a theme from Rachmaninov's Ave Maria, with the hope that it can be sung in Russia and help us better relate to our brothers and sisters there. Here is a link if you wish to hear the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUkqkRTcd8 Thanks! Countess Butterfly (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge Hard-shell Baptists here?

The page Hard-shell Baptists says that "Primitive Baptists" is a synonym; I'm wondering if that page's content (including discussion of Abraham Lincoln's childhood churches) should be merged into this page, and then replaced with a redirect here? Or is there a substantive distinction between Hard-Shell and Primitive? Agathman (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard-shell Baptist is a type of Primitive Baptist. So the pages should be merged.

As a somewhat Calvinist Baptist, I agree. Even the article's descriptions of the doctrines of Hard-shell Baptists matches that of Primitive Baptists. No sense in wasting the space. Anpetu-We (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done the merger. All I found in the old Hard-shell Baptists page that was not redundant was the paragraph about Lincoln, which I've added in a new section. I'm reading Ronald White's _A. Lincoln_ now, though, and it seems to disagree about the sectarian identity of the Little Pigeon Baptist Church, saying that one was "Regular Baptist". Anyone know more about this? Agathman (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Some 19th century "Regular Baptists" were later known as Primitive Baptists. One good example of such is Elder Wilson Thompson, who was an anti-missionary Baptist. In his autobiography, he identifies himself as an "old order" regular Baptist. In instances such as this, as well as Lincoln, regular Baptist was synonymous for primitive baptist. For further explanation, Primitive Baptists had no formal constitution date as an organization under that name. They were simply existing baptist churches that rejected modernizations to church practice and alterations to church doctrine. 65.4.24.36 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly appearing Hypercalvinist paragraph- The paragraph about Primitive Baptists embracing "Hyper-Calvinism" is not accurate, therefore it has been deleted by several users. No mainstream Primitive Baptist claims (embraces) to be a hypercalvinist! Mainstream Primitive Baptists prefer to avoid all labels based upon the names of deceased theologians. Also, to be frank, the sentence stating "a man can die without knowing Jesus and still receive resurrection" is not accurate either. Primitive Baptists believe wholeheartedly that EVERY elect will know Christ through Regeneration. What Primitive Baptists DENY is that every elect person will hear the Gospel. There is an enormous difference between the two concepts. I suspect the paragraph will continue to be deleted because it is not accurate.--72.146.59.218 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They may not embrace the label but the label fits with their beliefs. If a fish does not call itself a fish it remains indeed a fish. A man cannot know Jesus unless he hears the Gospel unless you follow a Hyper-Calvinistic approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.16.52 (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for accusations. Nor is it a place for you to voice your own theological dogmas. Further, your paragraph is not worded very scholarly and doesn't "fit" with the rest of the entry. --75.90.77.166 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am neither voicing my beliefs nor am I giving accusations. I am giving a quick summation of some of their core beliefs. If the problem is wording or "sound" fine edit it to "sound" better but a deletion is in error. The PB beliefs match up with HC. The label helps people quickly identify what the PB believes. I understand they do not like the term or the label but my point stands: If a fish is a fish call it a fish even if it wants to be called a duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.16.52 (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypercalvinism, according to the Wikipedia entry on Hypercalvinism, it is a pejorative term. Pejoratives are terms which have a negative connotation. Encyclopedias are designed to provide accurate, neutral descriptions of persons, events, or groups. Your paragraph entry is not neutral. Further, as a lifelong Primitive Baptist, I must say that your description does not accurately depict PB views on the subject of "knowing Christ." As before mentioned, Primitive Baptists wholeheartedly believe each elect person will know Christ (See Hebrews 8:10-13). What we reject is that all elect persons will hear the gospel (such as elect persons who die in infancy, who are mentally handicapped, and who live in lands where the gospel has not been preached). We believe that each of them (as is the case with all of God's elect) will be called by the Holy Spirit, Who moves as the wind, effectually quickening each of God's children. That description is ALREADY given in the Wikipedia entry on Primitive Baptists.

Hyper-calvinism is a term that describes certain theological beliefs. As for it being a "negative term" well lets face it in the right circle Calvinism is a pejorative term. Hyper-Calvinism is only a pejorative term when it is mis-applied. PB doctrine is very different from traditional Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrine. When I read the article I did not get this idea however the above posters paragraph (though it could use improving as far as wording) gave me a better understanding of the PB doctrine that synced up with what I have found in conversations with PBs and from some of the PB websites out there. If it was more clearly stated about not everyone needing to hear the gospel to be elect then the term Hyper-Calvinist could be left out however as an outsider I do not find the current article to give an accurate description of the PB as it makes them sound to similar to Calvinistic doctrine. As for those that say the above poster was attacking anyone...get real. An encyclopedia must have accurate information and not all information is as clear cut as mathematics. To call the ARP (Associate Reformed Presbyterian) denomination is not to insult them (though if you asked a Southern Baptist it likely would be an insult) nor was it meant as an insult labeling PB as Hyper-Calvinist. Quite frankly as a more objective outsider I have to say that y'all do sound like HCers to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.47.43.91 (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Calvinistic doctrine fully states that the believer will 'persevere' in holiness until natural death and if they don't then they never were a child of God. This the Primitive Baptists do not embrace. Calvin also believed that all of God's children would hear the gospel and this is supposedly the 'stimulus' in regeneration. Primitive Baptists don't embrace this either. So, how you label us as 'hyper-calvinists' is very misleading when we are not 'Calvinists' at all. Baptists had their gospel long before Calvin ever came along into the scene. Being an 'elect' of God has nothing to do with the gospel no matter who's gospel it is. Calvin's 'gospel' and the Primitive Baptist 'gospel' are not the same thing. Being labeled as "calvinistic" is a stigmatism we disagree with. Randy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.13.152 (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Calvinism also pre-dates John Calvin. A hyper-Calvinist is NOT a Calvinist either so that doesn't prove anything. HC says in a nutshell that belief and obediance does not matter...PB says the same thing. Yes there are distinctions and variations but that is one of the core concepts and the primary linkup between the two groups. HC is not all that PBs are it is just part of their belief system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.109.16.52 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone is trying to start another edit war. Mod probably needs to be called in to stop them both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.54.170 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One user continues to add his personal slurs against Primitive Baptists to the Primitive Baptist Wikipedia entry and several people continue to undo his post. As I stated above (though my comments were partially deleted), I am a Primitive Baptist Elder and we do not "subscribe" to Hyper Calvinism. AGAIN, as the Wikipedia entry on Hypercalvinism states, the term is a derogatory term. The term is OFFENSIVE to Primitive Baptists. The page accurately described what PBs believe WITHOUT the use of that particular label. I personally ask a moderator to step in and put an end to this. Thank you.--Bwinslett (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Introduction too long

The wikipedia banner across the top said that the introduction was too long. Would it be acceptable to leave the top paragraph as an introduction and the next two paragraphs in a section entitled "history," or something equivalent? Suggestions?? I think the data included is relevant to the article, but where should it be located? --Bwinslett (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. The lead should briefly summarize what/who a group is. You can read WP:LS for more on what a good lead is. Moving the other material to its own section and making the first paragraph a more full summary of the rest of the article should do the trick. Novaseminary (talk) 05:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just tag spam. The article would be improved by moving the index further up, but it would be improved much more by removing the gratuitous tag banners from the head of the article.203.206.162.148 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Entire article removed and replaced (Restoring ? )

This isn't an article with which I'm familiar but one editor 71.123.5.217 in good faith made edits here which have been reverted. Another editor Novaseminary had removed the entire content of this article so that only one sentence (marked citation needed) and the template at the bottom remained. It's difficult to judge WHICH version in the History of the article should be restored although I judged as best I could. This lousy t-shirt (talk)

The article had been tagged for some time. The IP added more unsourced, POV material, re-raising it on my radar. Not one of the sources that had been in the article was an RS. I stubbified with the idea that what was there was not a good basis to grow a sourced article. I then began the process of building an article that meets WP guidelines (or at least come a whole lot closer) by adding an RS. I will revert back to that version in my next edit. This sort of article needs meticulous sourcing. Novaseminary (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits have improved it already. Well done!  :) This lousy t-shirt (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New Article

The replacement article seems to say that the Primitive Baptist denomination grew out of a dispute. I thought that Primitive Baptists grew back into the fundamental beliefs of the original New Testament Church (see Acts). Primitive Baptists embrace the fact that there was a lot of misinformation about salvation - both types - going on about the time of the "missionary/anti-missionary" dispute. Primitive Baptists embrace the fact that misinformed missionaries believe that they can "win" people to eternal salvation and the fact that that properly informed missionaries believe that they cannot DO anything to effect eternal salvation, and that they can only carry the message of the Gospel and thereby obey the "Great Commission" by baptizing the people in the name of God (read triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost). Apparently the mix-up comes in a couple of subtle ways. People often conflate eternal salvation and temporal salvation, the former being what misinformed missionaries hopelessly attempt to accomplish, and the latter being what informed missionaries hopefully desire to promote. Also, when people misunderstand scripture and think that they can work to provide (or achieve) eternal salvation, they ignore an express, written description of the source of salvation, i.e., the grace given to God's people by faith. The further misconception is that people can refuse the thing given. This error also comes from the failure properly to associate the thing given with the incapacity of people to conceive or to produce in and of themselves an idea or an act in response to the thing given. The Biblical text indicates that that incapacity precludes a self-generated acceptance of the gift. Thus, the Bible clearly indicates that we are to be missionaries who carry the Gospel message that if a person was ever saved, they were saved by something that they had no control over. For this reason, the missionary/anti-missionary characterization of the genesis of the Primitive Baptist "denomination" is an error that should be reported in an article that provides information on the work by Mr. Garrett, which is currently referenced in the article. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.235.131 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Garrett's Book

It appears that Mr. Garrett himself attributes the adoption of the name, Primitive Baptist, to a "historical succession of Primitive Baptist churches from the New Testament era." Garrett, at 212. So, maybe the first sentence of the article might more appropriately read, "Primitive Baptists are a group of Baptists that entered the missionary / anti-missionary controversy that divided Baptists of America in the early part of the 19th century, with Primitive Baptists following the anti-missionary position." The difference reflects the fact that Garrett recognized that the Primitive Baptist Church existed in the New Testament era and therefore could not have "grown" out of the missionary dispute. The "anti-missionary" description still presents a problem as a misnomer, because Primitive Baptists are very much engaged in the mission of informing people that the power is not in man either to accept or to reject eternal salvation. One such recent mission of Primitive Baptist elders to Ghana, Africa continues to yeild fruit, church growth, and propagation of the good news of God's salvation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.235.131 (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Primitive Baptist → Primitive Baptists – This article is about a group, not an adjective, same reason as at Talk:Baptists/Archive_5#Change_article_title_to_Baptists.3F. Other Baptists articles were moved over a year ago, but this article was previously protected. Novaseminary (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Support move. No-brainer, really. StAnselm (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Yep, I would have just moved myself after the article was unprotected, but the redirect has some history so I couldn't. StAnselm (or anybody), I think I tracked down and moved most or all of these, but if you know of any others that need an admin to move, maybe you could list them here and get it all done at once. Novaseminary (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have just moved Old Regular Baptist. There is still Independent Baptist, which is a bit trickier, since the lead sounds like it is talking about churches, rather than people. But I still think it should be moved. StAnselm (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And now I've moved Progressive Baptist and Episcopal Baptist. But I've left United Baptist - not sure what to do with that one. StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The final page that can only be moved by an administrator is Seventh Day Baptist. StAnselm (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Independent Baptist really is a bit trickier. It does seem to focus on the churches, as opposed to the people themselves (who make up the churches). And it seems to be the churches that are independent, meaning not part of an association, not the people. I wonder if that one shouldn't be named "Independent Baptist Churches" (or maybe lower case "churches") per the lead. And then "Independent Baptists" and "Independent Baptist" redirect there. I do agree it shouldn't stay "Independent Baptist"; if not "Independent Baptist Churches" I'd say make it "Independent Baptists".

As for United Baptist, it sounds a lot like the name of a particular denomination (like United Presbyterian Church, but lacking the "church"). But it doesn't seem to actually be a group's formal name, so far as I can tell. And, assuming the article is correct, United Baptists arose out of several groups, all of which seem to use the plural "Baptists" most naturally. So unless it actually is a denominational name or particular organization's name, I would move it to "United Baptists" and modify the lead accordingly. The lead on that one especially needs work anyway.

Novaseminary (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than try to mess with the multi-move template this long after the initial request, I made a separate request to move the Seventh Day Baptist at Talk:Seventh Day Baptist#Requested move. Novaseminary (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo

I don't think this photo of a non-notable church added with this edit belongs in the article. It is not representative of Primitive Baptists or their churches nor is it a good example of one. And it doesn't appear to have played any important role with the group (or groups). Novaseminary (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable churches are fine - perhaps even to be preferred. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Pictures of individual churches in denominational articles. StAnselm (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That discussion notes that just being part of a denomination is not reason to automatically include a particular photo. Why this church or even this photo of the church? And non-notable churches might be fine, but what about it casues you to think it should be included in your editorial judgment? Novaseminary (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of Primitive Baptist churches where I live, so I can't say for sure, but are such churches normally plain and austere such as this? It would seem logical to me, but I don't want to speak authoritatively about something I don't know. If so, based on the discussion linked above, it would seem sensible to keep this photograph. Kansan (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I included this church because Novaseminary thought the other one was "not a good photo." StAnselm (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with including it per Kansan above, if this were representative or typical. But I don't think it is, as a search through commons shows. A source noting as much, thoguh, would convince me. Novaseminary (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that this point is such that an authoritative source is needed (like what you would need in an actual article reference). A quick perusal of Google image search images (note: some NSFW images came up, even with Google image search on strict) of "Primitive Baptist Church" indicated that this type of church tends not to be ornate. I'm satisfied that this photograph would be fine (and honestly, I don't even have a problem with the first photograph, but we might as well go with the one that shows the front of the church). Kansan (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

We do need to avoid OR, though, even with images. I've never read anything that says their churches are typically plain (though that doesn't mean it is not noted in RSs). What about File:PrimitiveBaptistChurchNashville.jpg, File:Hanover Chapel, Hanover Rd - geograph.org.uk - 1155548.jpg, and File:Primitive Baptist Church of Brookfield.jpg, and File:FEMA - 12138 - Photograph by Mark Wolfe taken on 12-04-2004 in Florida.jpg? Novaseminary (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary, we've been over this ground before. Anyway, I have created a commons category, and linked to it in the article. And yes, it does look like the current photo is of a typical building. The second photo you suggested is in the UK, while this article deals with American Primitive Baptists. Having a photo of the inside (your fourth suggestion) is fine in addition to the one that is already there, but some people might think having two photos in an article of this size is overcrowding. StAnselm (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary, While I understand the argument you're making, I think that not taking this into account stretches the definition of OR beyond that which it was intended to cover. Even if not every Primitive Baptist church looks like this, enough do for the principle (which isn't even a formal guideline) to be generally covered. I think this is a fine example of a Primitive Baptist church, and most readers aren't going to conclude that they all look alike anyway any more than they would conclude that all Southern Baptist churches look the same. Kansan (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think a photo of this church, and only this church, should not be in the article as it stands. It seems more representative/illustrative of churches in that area than of Primitive Baptist facilities. Nonetheless, with this edit I swapped the photo of the back door of this church for one of the front of the building. The fact that the back door was the photo added in my mind only supports my belief that the insertion was somewhat haphazard/not supported by anything other than a desire to add a photo for its own sake (at best, assuming good faith). I hope we can agree that a photo of the front is better. Novaseminary (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "for its own sake" - it was added to illustrate the article's subject - namely, Primitive Baptist churches. StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The photo of Chilhowee Primitive Baptist Church should be removed until the Primitive Baptist article can be updated to reflect all types of denominations of Primitive Baptists. Chilhowee Primitive Baptist Church AKA. Red Top, is part of the Original Tennessee Association of Primitive Baptists. The association consists of 10 churches. Laws Chapel, Millers Cove, New Providence, Edgewood, Chilhowee, Meadow Branch, Pine Top, Popular Springs, Welch Cove & Cove Road. All 10 church are within a 50 mile radius of Maryville, TN and have been established for over 200 years. They are progressive in relation to most Primitive Baptists, they preach repentance to unregenerated sinners, have Sunday school, attend worship service weekly, have a mid-week service, and support footwashing meetings and revivals in each church.Xtremeeyewitness (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Current Article

As a Primitive Baptist I find this article to be extraordinarily shallow. And I would think that the best authority on this subject would be someone who has resources available on Primitive Baptist history. The very basic information that I attempted to place earlier was all supported from denominational sources, and general encyclopedias. And every bit of information was cited, which can not be said for some other denominational sites, such as the Southern Baptist. So I'm a little confused why a cited, basic information article was so quickly dismissed. This current article, which was the article I removed, was removed because it is historically inaccurate, and given the consistent actions by its author must be intended less for knowledge and more for slandering. I will repost my information and if this is how this article is going to be conducted then it will have to be taken to dispute resolution. Akinsaul1 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Your references are sound, and I think the information you have added is helpful. But I don' think you should have deleted the information that was already in the article. You even removed the picture - why was that? That's why I couldn't wholeheartedly endorse your edits. But if you add back your material and integrate it into the existing article, I will be happy to endorse it. StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

And to that I would add, please read and follow WP:NPOV. As you can see discussed above, before it was culled down, this article had major POV and other problems. Also, it would probably best to not spend too much ink discussing general Baptist beliefs. The article should focus on this group, or groups, in particular. Other more general articles can cover the generalities. I wouldn't look to Southern Baptist Convention as a model, either. It needs a lot of work. And rather than accusing other editors (we are all editlrs, not authors here) of editing to slander this group, read and follow WP:NPA and WP:NLT. And finally, since you seem to be new here, you might have any easier time of things if you read through some of the tips found in the links I pasted on your talk page. Novaseminary (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we would need a reliable source to state that Primitive Baptists hold to TULIP. But the first section was good. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm in the process of adding inline citations. It would help if certain editors would not sabotage this process by deleting the whole article. -- 202.124.75.142 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You do know that unsourced text does not need to remain visible in an article for an editor to work on sourcing it, right? If you would log in, you could use a sandbox. Or stay logged out and use a text editor (which might allow you to add sources without quite so many somewhat annoyin intermediate edits). Regardless, thanks for adding sources. That is all I have ever requested, and WP policy requires. Novaseminary (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

With this edit the mystery IP editor, 202.124.73.XX, removed a tag I had placed questioning the use of this obviously self-published website. My concern is that it is not a reliable source. In the IP's edit summery, the IP noted: "Source is a primary source by a BP elder, permitted by WP:ABOUTSELF". I disagree that ABOUTSELF supports use of this source in this article.

If this article was about Elder Zach Guess, and there were no "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", then I think it probably would be ok for the sorts of facts for which such sources are ok per WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF (though it does not appear to have been updated since the late 90s which could raise other questions). Of course, "Primary Baptists" certainly is not coexstensive with "Elder Zach". We have no reason to believe his writing is followed by any, let alone most, other Primitive Baptists now, or ever. He is not a spokesperson for Primtive Baptists. At most, we could use this source to support why he believes certain things. (As a third-party source about what others believe it would fail WP:SPS.) So I think, at least, it fails part 2 of ABOUTSELF: it is being used to support claims about third-parties (parties other than Elder Zach or anybody else he clearly speaks for). Right now it is the only support for this sentence: "They trace this belief back to the Old Testament where musical instruments were played during animal sacrifices and ceased after the sacrifice was finished (2 Chronicles 29:25-30)."

It is also at least somewhat self-serving (part 1) because, as made clear in the introduction, the purpose of the web page is to convince others of his positions.

So, I think this source should not continue to be included and any facts it is supporting be supported by another source or flagged or removed if they cannot be supported. Perhaps StAnselm or editors would weigh in? I am going to reinsert the tag which, I think, shoudl stay until there is a consensus here or the source is removed. So as to not provoke the IP, though, for now I won't remove the source (as I hadn't before).

Novaseminary (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the source is fine: pb.org is the closest thing the PB community (or at least that portion of the PB community which eschews musical instruments) has to having a spokesperson, hence WP:ABOUTSELF applies. Both sentences to which the source is attached are also supported by 3rd part references, but I think to acchieve WP:NPOV the article needs to include some kind of voice from inside the PB community. And I completely fail to understand the "self-serving" comment: a voice from inside naturally argues for the community's POV. The source is being brought in to illustrate the kinds of arguments used to do so. -- 202.124.74.234 (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My reference to self-serving was not a crticism of the source; as you note, naturally it is so. But self-serving is one part of ABOUTSELF. That is why I noted it. Regardless, I still disagree with you. NPOV does require using a group member's own words. And how do we know tbe status of pb.org? Let's let others weigh in. You, as an IP with few edits (so far as we know, why not login?) thinking the source is fine does not equal consensus. At least leave the tag in to note the lack of consensus. I am respecting your position enough to leave the source in for now. How about a little reciprical respect (if not for me, for WP:CONSENSUS)? Novaseminary (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

3O

There is a difference of opinion (see above) on whether the citation to Elder Zack Guess (ref #9) at www.pb.org breaches WP:SPS or is allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF. The www.pb.org site is repeatedly linked to by other Primitive Baptist churches, and seems to be the closest thing there is to a voice from inside the Primitive Baptist community. However, it is obviously self-published. The citation is a supplementary one, supported by another 3rd party reference. -- 202.124.73.190 (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Primitive Baptists and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The Zack Guess source is not a reliable source as its use violates WP:SPS. The website pb.org makes no claim to be an official body of any Primitive Baptist individual church or church organization and the opinions expressed there are no more than those of the website owner and the authors of the papers the author accepts for publication there. "Closest thing" to an official voice is not sufficient for Wikipedia purposes, since the purpose of the verifiability policy is to insure that Wikipedia users do not have to take the word of Wikipedia about assertions made here: they can check the sources for themselves. To include the text that this source supports on the basis of this citation is, in effect, an affirmation by Wikipedia that what is said in this text is verifiably true about Primitive Baptists. In fact, it is the opinion of just one person, the author and also, presumably, the owner of the website (but even that is doubtful since there is nothing which says that the owner fully agrees with everything published there). I also partially disagree with the assertion that, "The citation is a supplementary one, supported by another 3rd party reference." The Guess reference supports two assertions, one about animal sacrifices and the other about "no New Testament command to play, but only to sing." The other reference, the book by Patterson, makes no reference to animal sacrifices, as can be determined by searching it through Google Books. The Guess reference should be removed and the animal sacrifices sentence should be {{fact}}-tagged and should subsequently be removed as well unless a reliable source can be found for it in a reasonable period of time. (One place such a source might be found is through the notes to the Patterson book.) As noted in the Disclaimers section, above, Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus; if you wish a definitive (or at least as definitive as anything gets here at Wikipedia) decision about the reliability of the source, consider making a request at the reliable sources noticeboard.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Accept - Transporterman analized the issues comprehensively, far better than I had above. Seeing as now two long-time editors agree, with the only dissent coming from an IP editor(s) with only a few edits (effectively a SPA), I think there is enough to make the change. With this edit I have followed TransporterMan's suggestion. As with anything, this is subject to further discussion, of course. Thanks to TransporterMan for taking the time to give an opinion here. Novaseminary (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will accept the consensus on Guess for now. However, the ref which Novaseminary removed did indeed back up up the sacrifice issue. I have reworded to include a direct quote from p13 of that book: "many forms and customs, many types and shadows, many priests with priestly robes, many sacrifices, festivals, tithings." TransporterMan's claim about non-occurrence is clearly false. -- 202.124.73.229 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Foot washing

With this edit, I reverted the reinsertion of a section on foot washing. It is unsourced and seems to be OR (citing an original source, the Bible) and possibly pushing a POV. It has repeatedly been reinserted by an IP range without discussion, sourcing, or good faith edit summaries. I'm not saying this should never be added, but it should be sourced and neutral and not rely on advancing an argument from the Bible or any other primary source. Novaseminary (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

With this edit, I added in mention of foot washing, without OR and cited to several reliable sources. Novaseminary (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

infant baptism?

the following sentence is confusing. "Primitive Baptists reject elements of Calvin's theology, such as rejecting infant baptism ...." Does it mean "Primitive Baptists reject elements of Calvin's theology, such as infant baptism ...." --142.163.195.18 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)