Talk:Reformed Baptists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Calvinism / Baptist (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Baptist work group (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


I feel the defintion of Reformed theology as "adhering to and showing respect for much of the theology defined by John Calvin" is too narrow. Reformed theology today not only has its roots in quite a few reformers but also in writers and teachers in ages since, particularily the puritans both in England and the US. I tried to make this statement more inclusive of their work but so far haven't come up with a precise way to say it.

Under common traits, number 7, I changed the word "frutify" to "multiply". I am not aware of such a word and could not find it in any dictionary I have, so I changed it to something I think fits the intent. - Rlvaughn 19:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is very dishonest. If you look at and you will see that the consistent teaching of the 1646 particular baptists is not covenant theology, but rather New Covenant Theology. The two primary doctrines that cause these folks to stand out from the 1689 baptists is the teaching that the law cannot cause conviction, that the terrors of the law are not necessary to prepare one to receive the gospel, and that the gospel alone convicts savingly. Even in most NCT circles, including the reference at this Wiki site, people still use the law unlawfully, seeking repentance in men for this or that sin, rather than the sin of unbelief through the power of the gospel alone, the ONLY sword of the spirit. Those 1646 folk also were correct in opposing the doctrine of eternal generation of the Son, realizing that Psalm 2:7 has its fulfillment in Acts 13:33, at the resurrection of the dead, which is the only true begatting of the Son! While many particular baptists adopted covenant theology, and took on the 1689 confession, as did many American baptists including the Southern Baptists, the 1646 people would have nothing of that teaching and called the papists and their Protestant children false teachers. A scholarly fellow needs to reflect that truth in this article. user:bgamall

Famous Reformed Baptists[edit]

Although one cannot be precise as to a definition of being famous, it's probably sufficient to exclude names which would not be well known to most Reformed Baptists. That's why I removed the names associated with Exe Gia Publishing from this section, and instead (to be clear that this isn't vandalism), I added a link to the site in the external links section. DFH 20:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The section heading has since been changed to Notable Reformed Baptists, more in keeping with Wikipedia criteria. DFH 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

John Piper[edit]

Someone added that to list John Piper under Famous Reformed Baptists is "disputed". As they gave no source which shows that this is disputed, I have tagged the entry with the {{fact}} template. Note that the point for consideration is not whether you dispute it, but whether there are citable sources to show that this is disputed, i.e. by sufficiently notable commentators. DFH 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just ran across this. As far as the citable sources, it would seem better to cite a source that shows he is a Reformed Baptist rather than a source showing that he is not. Piper probably considers himself "Reformed", but his church is not affiliated with a group that is generally considered "Reformed". He is lead pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, which is a member of the Baptist General Conference. Perhaps his name should go over in that article rather than here. Just a thought.
Piper is already mentioned in the text of Baptist General Conference. Please register as a Wikipedia user and always login before you edit, and sign your edits to talk pages using four tilde. DFH 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Al Mohler is listed and he's SBC -- not the most Reformed body in the world, but there's still plenty of us Southern Baptists upholding the Doctrines of Grace. Piper would fit in the same way. (BTW, I'm going to take out the little note: if it's proper to include him, just include him.) A.J.A. 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There are many who would argue for a distinction between Calvinistic Baptists and Reformed Baptists, myself being one. "Reformed" Baptists are confessional and hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Jim Ellis 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of the usefulness of the distinction, what you added to the article probably violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. A.J.A. 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What I added is not original research. I'll look for citations. And I don't see it as POV either. It is almost common knowledge with which Reformed, Reformed Baptists, and Calvinistic Baptists would likely agree. However, I'll make some slight changes to improve the NPOV. Jim Ellis 01:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that distinction made before, but with plural elders being the dividing line. So it may not be as well-defined in general usage as it is in your circles. A.J.A. 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. Yes, the "plurality of elders" has also been a dsitinction. And my comments may be somewhat parochial. :-) I have no problem if you would like to modify the entry or delete it entirely. Peace. Jim Ellis 11:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Covenant Theology and Sabbatarianism[edit]

I'm pretty sure that not all Reformed Baptists are Sabbatarians or hold to a Covenant Theology position. Most of the profs at my school who are Reformed Baptists are neither (including my Principal, Michael A. G. Haykin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud Stryfe (talkcontribs) 18:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Notable Reformed Baptists[edit]

The following modern Reformed Baptists don't yet have articles in WP:

The following 17th century Baptist pastors had a significant influence on the development of Particular Baptist theology:

See: Kiffin, Knollys and Keach - Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage, by Michael A. G. Haykin (1996) DFH 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The three from the seventeenth century definitely need articles. A.J.A. 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could import any that exist from the 1911 Britannica or the Schaff-Herzog. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Started a stub on Keach.Brian0324 18:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Reformed Baptists Calvinists?[edit]

... and should they appear on Template:Calvinism? Please see the discussion at Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Charles Spurgeon, evangelist[edit]

Wouldn't Preacher be more appropriate? StAnselm 03:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, changed it. StAnselm 09:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

driscoll and mohler not reformed baptists[edit]

mohler is a southern baptist and driscoll's church is non-denominational. though these men may have close ties with reformed baptist churches and reformed baptist pastors, they are not directly associated with the denomination. at least to my knowledge they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be pretty clear from the article that the "reformed Baptists" are not a sole denomination, but more of a theological movement within different Baptist circles. There certainly are some "reformed Baptist" denominations, but there are also reformed Baptists in the Southern Baptist Convention, the GARBC, and other Baptist gruops. Mohler certainly qualifies, and Driscoll does as well with a looser use of the term "baptist". raekwon (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Geographical Areas[edit]

I'm not very familiar with editing pages and so on. Could someone please change the box on the top right hand side of the page, which says "Geographical areas - United States & Canada" to something a bit more global? See the map provided in the middle of the page It also seems strange that the article mentions several times that Reformed Baptists adhere to creeds that originated in London, whilst maintaining "Geographical areas - United States & Canada". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrlforsyth (talkcontribs) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The earliest Baptist bodies were in England and the Netherlands-- but many (or all) of those bodies are no longer around.
Is there some other geographical area you know of with a notable number of Reformed Baptists? şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 16:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has the whole page virtually disappeared?[edit]

Could whoever messed this up please return and fix it? This was a very comprehensive article which has been reduced to a paragraph.

A few "contributions" ago, if you look through the history, there has been an "uncontroversial" move, either from or to Reformed Baptist*s*, but at neither page is there anything like the article that used to exist. Fix please!!! I'm trying myself now.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was stubified because the prior text was unsourced, POV and had other problems as noted in the edit summaries. Please do not reinsert text without meeting WP:BURDEN. Novaseminary (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


WP:BURDEN says, "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." You could have simply marked the items that needed citations such that references could be added. Now we have to dig through the old page before we can find references to it.

WP:BURDEN also says, "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." There was a good bibliography in the original page that could have been used to affirm much or all of the prior text.

Elnwood (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Here is a link to the "old" version; it is still around, no need to dig through anything. And it was tagged, for more than three years as OR and since September for sources (which is related). It was almost entirely unsourced, and the one source there was failed WP:SYNTH. As for looking for sources, the sources there now (some added by me) are used properly and are RSs. But please do add more sources. Novaseminary (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Novaseminary, was it you who removed the article? How could you have regarded it as POV? ... maybe you prefer the kind of article which blatantly casts doubt on Christianity as a whole. The original article certainly didn't do that, which may have been the problem you had with it.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Novaseminary removed the article, without explaining what was meant by "POV." Some of that material should be reinstated, if it can be sourced. -- (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Right, some of it can go back in if it can be sourced. Though some of it was POV (read WP:NPOV) (e.g., "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized"), I noted in my edit summary here that I was removing long-tagged original research, or at least material that was unsourced. I didn't mention POV in my edit summary or in the talk posting immediately above Jamesrlforsyth's and your revelation about my edit. And then, I added a source (also as noted a few postings up). We could of course keep discussing and complaining about events of almost a year ago, or we could work to improve the article. Novaseminary (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Phrases like "important Biblical truths were recovered and reemphasized" are unfortunate, but can surely be handled by rewording rather than outright deletion? -- (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to imply that nothing related to this can ever go in the article. Unsourced, POV material does not belong. Sourced, NPOV material that is given due weight is fantastic. The fact that the long-removed unsourced text is so clearly POV makes me doubt the veracity of the facts themselves, POV aside. But please, add neutral sourced text. Please. Novaseminary (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notable people[edit]

In an effort to head off the repeated insertion of non-notable or unsourced entries in the Notable Reformed Baptists section, I propose spinnjng it off into a stand-alone list. That might make it less attractive to link spammers, or at least keep it out of what should become a real article. Who knows, that might even help the substance of this article grow. Novaseminary (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done - Created the spin-off SAL at List of Reformed Baptists. Novaseminary (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources and IP edits[edit]

With this edit, I again reverted an IP editor's insertion of non-RSs and OR. IP, please explain how the source is ok or the material not OR. Novaseminary (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)