This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity: Theology / Anabaptist / Arminianism / Evangelical High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Anabaptist work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

There are various anabaptist groups. No one anabaptist denomination can speak for all anabaptists.I have also noted in other material that not all anabaptists spoke theologicaly but rather expressed their beliefs in confessions of faith and debated with other christians their 'position' on certain topics e.g communion. The words 'Contempory anabaptism' is relative only to the denomination which is presenting their ideas. No one anabaptist denomination can speak for all anabaptists. There are various types of Mennonites, conservative, progressive etc. Each has their own particular 'brand' of theology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.204 (talk) 01:17, October 6, 2007

True, but the idea here is simply to cover many of the significant common beliefs. For example, all modern Anabaptists have some form of "peace church" tradition, even if some have drifted away from their traditional pacifist stance. Where beliefs diverge, readers can be directed to the appropriate articles on specific groups. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only have some drifted away from their traditional pacifist, or should I say 'peace making' stance, but some anabaptists do not not seem to understand the significance of what anabaptism is. For example in a recent (Australian) ABC program it was thought by some that anabaptism can be expressed by Catholics, a church that has enshrined their 'just war' theology, (and infant baptism) in the their current catechism.Any catholic that thinks otherwise is not considered in full communion with the catholic church and should not receive communion.I assume these anabaptist -catholics do receive communion when they go to Mass. So the idea of catholics and other 'just war'and infant 'baptism' denominations embracing anabaptist ideals is a farce as far as I am concerned. As Tertullian stated in 197 AD,'The Christian does no harm even to his foe'. I can fully understand how some 'anabaptists' can be seen to have lost the plot. Also you might want to check out what christian denomination the defence minister of Holland was prior to the second world war. Another interesting exercise is looking at how some anabaptists voted prior to Bush being elected. I refer you to a recent 'The Mennonite' magazine' article on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.255.112 (talk) 03:25, October 10, 2007

Keep in mind that this article is about theology, not public opinion, though. Because of some of the rules here about sources, it would be difficult to tie things like voting habits to theological beliefs, unless there are writings from reliable sources that make a case using that data. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These days 'worldly' popular public opinion seems to be driving theology rather than scripture and the Holy Spirit(e.g political correctness), therefore it seems that theology looks for feed back from society. Both seem to be feeding off each other. Therefore today, I believe, public opinion has become inseparable from theology.A Theological view point seems to live or die based on what values the world has or wants, when a particular theology arrives on the scene. So therefore to see trends in theology one need only do the research and then tie it to sociology. Augustine did not become a victim of the cult of popularity by NOT preaching that war could be justified.His 'just war' philosophy seems to have been popular at the time and so it thrived, as is the philosophy of peace making, for now. As in most dramas, the actors perform to an audience, otherwise the actor's popularity dies. Anabaptism became popular because poeple were dying from hunger and oppression.They were not concerned with theology.(you can't eat theology).They needed a church that practised what scripture taught about love in action, not in words alone, and a church which was guided by the Holy Spirit. Not that type of theology which is intellectually stimulating and acceptable to the academic world and which I believe we are now witnessing again today in the 'peace making' philosophy. Conservative minded people who are Christian want to be guided by scripture and the Holy Spirit, not by popular opinion or academic self indulgence which is taught to others so as to make their Christianity seem 'relevent' to today's so called 'modern' weatern world. A western world of lonliness and lack of social connectiveness, and selfish indifference to others in the very suburbs in which they live. A confession of faith formed by agreements between members of a congregation/church is one thing, 'theology' is quite a different species.Grass roots practises, such as hospitality, and a sense that someone cares are what made Christianity popular amongst the people of the Roman Empire, not theology. I believe Christianity started to die the minute philosophy in theology became more important than people's needs.Hence, I believe meeting people's needs were the driving force behind anabaptism, not theology.Those needs differ from country to country, but anabaptistism's practise of hospitality is what is needed in the west, not peace making or theology.

It's certainly true that public opinion often affects theology in various ways, but what does that have to do with this particular article? Discussing subjects not related to improving the articles is strongly discouraged here. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think my comments are not relevent here. After all we are talking about anabaptist theology and how and why it evolved are we not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.255.112 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Some anabaptist/Mennonite groups in North America now accept infant baptism.See the online version of 'The Mennonite' magazine and go to the article 'Mennonite but not anabaptist'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.135.208 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those who kept a Saturday Sabbath were a minority, a very small minority, from my understanding. Thus this point should reflect that the Sabbath-keepers were a small minority. My understanding is that the Sabbath-keepers were only a few congregations mostly in Silesia. As far as I know, none of the Swiss Brethren, Dutch Anabaptists, South German Anabaptists, nor Hutterites were Sabbath-keepers. Thus the Sabbath-keepers were probably about 1% of early Anabaptism. No current Anabaptist 6denomination is Sabbath-keeping that I am aware of (of course I don't know everything). Thus we need the article to reflect these realities. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say in the previous comment that some current individual Anabaptists do hold to keeping a Saturday Sabbath, but again they would probably be even less than 1%, a very small minority. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the entire paragraph added by User:Ioan.Church should be removed. It does not reflect standard Anabaptist theological thought on the Lord's Day and may actually mislead readers into thinking that a substantial portion of Anabaptists hold seventh-day Sabbatarian views, which is simply not true (see WP:RF). Additionally, User:Ioan.Church's addition violates WP:RS and WP:V given that there is no reference to buttress his claims. Anupam^Talk 01:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is not a democracy. All traditional Anabaptists (excluding Mennonite denominations) both rest on Saturdays AND worship on the Lord's day. As far as I know there are no Anabaptists who have ever worshipped on Saturday as the Lord's day and that was never intended to be the meaning which you took from the facts I inserted. How about keeping your ego in check and calming down? So what if you took the wrong end of the stick? Is the world going to end now? I have nothing against you for it. Why declare that everything I wrote must now be be silenced at all costs now? It is obvious you are not an Anabaptist and don't know much about the topic. Hubermaier's converts simply wrote about the importance of resting on Saturdays for Anabaptists because Anabaptists are fundamentalist observers of the New Testament Old faith as were the early Christians (who indisputable kept holy the Sabbath day). This has nothing to do with Saturday worship and of course no one is saying that all of the modern denominations descended from the original Anabaptists still keep Holy the Saturday Sabbath. But it is also wrong to pretend that all Anabaptists have adopted Dunkard 1st Day Sabbatarianism (whose total population was only 1035 by 2021 which means the Bei Abedan Schule is more noteworthy these days with over 2100 members as of 2023 and growing) which is currently implied in the article. So there has been a gross misunderstanding by those who gave in to the corporal tendency to gang up on and silence something they misunderstand. But I will not resist. Ioan.Church (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioan.Church Some of the claims you are making about about Anabaptism and resting on Saturdays will need definite sources to be admitted to the article. If you can find a reliable source to back up any of your claims, by all means feel free to add them into the article. But without reliable sources, we should not be adding disputed points into the article. This book (https://www.amazon.com/Andreas-Fischer-Sabbatarian-Anabaptists-Reformation/dp/0836112938/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488067459&sr=1-1&keywords=andreas+fischer) about Andreas Fischer is the only major one (of which I am personally aware) that treats the topic of Seventh-day Sabbatarianism in Anabaptism. I thought I had a copy, but my library catalog is not showing it. My understanding of the matter is that, yes, there were a small number of early Anabaptists who kept a Saturday Sabbath. They were clustered in Silesia. But they were a very small minority in the early Anabaptist movement, probably just about 1% or something like that. So the article needs to reflect that reality. We cannot give any major emphasis on that one particular viewpoint if we are going to keep the article in balance.

As the idea of adult believer's baptism spread, there are groups of Seventh-day Sabbatarians who picked up on the idea of adult believer's baptism as well. So, technically, for example, today's Seventh-day Adventists are "Anabaptists" since they would advocate adult believer's baptism and probably rebaptize someone from a Catholic or Protestant church who had been baptized as an infant. But historians in general do not consider Seventh-day Adventists as "Anabaptists" properly, since their movement did not derive directly from the early Anabaptist movement. I am personally okay with the modified sentence you added to be in the article, but I also understand the point of @Anupam that since it was a very, very slim percentage in early Anabaptism, and has never been a part of any larger "Anabaptist" denomination, that it can be misleading. If the sentence is retained, it needs to be clear that traditional Anabaptism has never held to Seventh-day Sabbatarianism except in very small numbers. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say Mike but you are still way off base from the point and NB my point has already been removed from the article and I was arguing to have it restored yet am not resisting anyone's edits. But now I have to correct my point slightly because I had said that I don't think there have ever been any Anabaptists who observed Saturday as the Lord's day. But now I see that I was wrong. Dr. L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, professor of church history at Leyden presents us in his ‘History of Protestantism,’ with an extensive list of the beliefs of a sabbatarian branch of the Dutch-German Anabaptists of the 16th century who were in many ways similar to those of the Waldenses. The sixth article of faith says: “You must keep Saturday as the Day of the Lord, because God has ordained that day as such and not Sunday, that men have made for that.” [1] So not only were Hubmaier's students promoting rest on Saturday (while not denying Sunday as the Lord's day) there were 7th Day Anabaptists too who held that Saturday was the Lords day. In the end my main point still stands that the opinion of the tiny Dunkards sect (that Sunday is both the Lord's day and the day of rest) should not be presented as if it is the position of all Anabaptists. That is still my only real point. What we really need here to clear up the matter is simply some input from the traditional (i.e. non-Mennonite) Anabaptist sects other than the Dunkards of course.[2] As for Anupam's claims on percentages BRING YOUR EVIDENCE!! Ioan.Church (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to follow your line of thinking here. You mention "traditional (i.e. non-Mennonite) Anabaptists other than the Dunkards of course." This is not the usual sense of "traditional," since Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, and the German Baptists are considered the traditional or mainline Anabaptist groups. From a personal perspective, with having spent the last 35 years of my life among current Anabaptists, including Old Order, New Order, and Beachy Amish, then all kinds of Mennonites, and German Baptists, having literally thousands of friends among them, I can probably count on one hand the number of traditional Anabaptists that I know who hold to a Saturday Sabbatarianism. And actually, no name even comes to my mind, although I know that there have been a few over the years that I have heard of or met. I have about 250 books on Anabaptist history in my library (although I have not read all of them actually). So I think that I do have a least a decent base to speak from: Seventh-day Sabbatarianism has been a very, very minority position both in early Anabaptism and today among the traditional Anabaptist groups. The link to Anabaptist World is not relevant. That is talking about a Jewish perspective, not Anabaptist perspective. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the disputed paragraph from the article. There is no reference to buttress its inclusion and thus, its presence in the article is not only misleading, but a violation of WP:V and WP:RS. If User:Ioan.Church is able to provide a reference for his/her claims, I would be happy to consider its inclusion in the article for the future. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your disruptive edit because 1.you have not yet backed up your claim on percentages and 2 no concensus has yet been arrived and 3 it has already been established that the information on Glaidt and Fisher (and I almost forgot to mention the newly discussed sabbatarian branch of the Dutch-German Anabaptists) is factual. Kindly engage in discussion and prove that the comment about Glaidt and afisher is false USING REFERENCES before you remove it again. Ioan.Church (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the disputed section with a citation needed. If none is provided, the information needs to be removed. Personally, I understand the position of @Anupam, in that the number of Anabaptists who have held to Saturday Sabbatarianism to be so minority that it really does not deserve a mention. This page is about what Anabaptist's believe, not about what they do NOT believe. And if only a very small percentage believe something, then at some point it falls into what they do NOT believe. For the disputed information to remain on the page, an editor needs to find a reputible source that supports the fact, and that it was more than just a small minority. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal anecdotes about how many Menonites you have met as an Anabaptist who does not keep Holy the 7th day is interesting but not an unbiased source. On the other hand these are an interesting start to get familiar with the context. We should also not forget that Anabaptists claim they obey everything in the NT so quoting the NT is the best way to describe Anabaptist beliefs excluding those groups who have made compromises with modern life. I will come back to add more from. Time to time when life permits. [3] and this [4] and this [5] and this [6] Ioan.Church (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last source actually flies in the face of what you have been promoting. It says on page 412, "It is generally supposed that Seventh-day Sabbatarianism took its rise among the Anabaptists. Undoubtedly it was among the early Baptist congregations that the tenet found most acceptance, and was more practically carried out. But in its origin it formed no part of Anabaptist principles."

Your second source (https://sdanabaptist.weebly.com/who-we-are.html) says this: "This doctrine was the restoration of the Seventh Day Sabbath, however only a small number of Anabaptists adopted the 4th commandment of the Decalogue."

We cannot allow this page on Anabaptist Theology to leave the impression that 7th-day Sabbatarianism was by any means the norm in the past, nor in the present. Mikeatnip (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fly in the face. It is EXACTLY what I have been promoting. But egos got too flared to even bother trying to dialogue to understand the issue and arrive at a concensus. My recommendation is that everyone takes a step back to get some perspective on the things that really matter in life. I have never promoted the idea that Saturday was the Lord's day, only that many Anabaptists have and do still rest on Saturdays. [7] Have a look at the little treasure trove at the bottom of this little page for more leads [8] all one has to do was Google search for 7th day Anabaptist. Searching for Sabbatarian Anabaptist / Anabaptists / Anabaptism also yields plenty of very good results. Ioan.Church (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are mostly blogs and personal pages, with the most reputible source you have presented saying "Seventh-day Sabbatarianism ... in its origen formed no part of Anabaptist principles." The scholarly consensus is that 7th-day Sabbatarianism was only adhered to by a very small minority of early Anabaptists, and today only a very small minority of people who are called "Anabaptists" adhere to it.

You will need to supply a page number for the reference of the Dutch work you cited. Then other editors can verify if this is indeed a valid source, and whether it is taken in context. Again, while there may have been 7th-day Sabbatarians amongst the Dutch Anabaptists, they were a very small minority, so much so that most Anabaptist historians ignore them entirely or at best give them a passing reference as an abnormality. We are supposed to be defining Anabaptist theology with this article, not every little unusual digression. Of all the doctrines listed in the article, one could probably find a few Anabaptists who would have disagreed. But the focus should be on the normative, not the unique and unusual. Mikeatnip (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be ignoring the part which says "and today only a very small minority of people who are called Anabaptists adhere to it" which is proven by the existence of the group websites linked to. Furthermore respect for 7th day rest is mentioned in the Anabaptist World article as one of the points of common ground with Seventh Day Adventist. So even if the Ancient tradition is still preserved today by a minority (which the YouTube channel shows is anyway a bigger community than the Dunkards), the point is that it is still a well-attested and persistent substream worthy of mention. I remind that the current wording of the article plays down this fact. Ioan.Church (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Seventh-day Anabaptists are so prominent, then why is there not even a Wikipedia page about them? And John D. Roth in the source you mentioned (by the way, John is a friend of mine) says this: "Most North American Mennonites are skeptical about SDA theology, especially its teachings on Sabbath worship ..." I am sorry to say this, but your sources are actually undermining the idea that seventh-day sabbatarianism is or has been part of mainstream Anabaptist theology. Mikeatnip (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ioan.Church, I have reverted your insertion of the disputed paragraph per WP:BRD. As this is new information entering the article, the onus is on you to justify its inclusion. As of now, senior editors who have worked extensively on this page oppose its presence in the article. The sources that you have provided are blogs, YouTube videos, etc. which inherently violate WP:RS. The community you are referencing is non-notable and you may have a conflict of interest for your repetitive attempts to add it on Wikipedia (such as this attempt). If you continue your tendentious behavior, you will be blocked, as you have already received a warning for WP:3RR violations. Thanks for your understanding, Anupam^Talk 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 revert rule only applies when an article is reverted to the exact same condition (with no intermediate edits from other users) 3 times by the same user. The only person here who is coming close to breaking that rule at this point is Anupam. It is time you calmed down and started to engage in the discussion to move things forward appropriately please and stop being disruptive. There is nothing wrong with being bold.Ioan.Church (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ioan.Church, I have found that three of your very sources you gave on this talk page have proven you to be wrong. I asked for a page number in the book you cited. I am at the point that I agree with @Anupam that your suggested edit does not belong on the page unless and until you can provide a citation from a reputible source that indicates that 7th-day Sabbatarianism has ever been a part of mainstream Anabaptist theology. I tried to give you an opportunity, but I will revert your edit again because you have not supplied evidence. We simply ask for solid sources, and you have not provided anything besides blog pages, Youtube, etc. Thank you for working with us to make Wikipedia a good place to get solid information. Mikeatnip (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is a language problem here. The sources I have provided are proving my point. But I don't think you have understood what my point is because you yourself in your previous comment to me here prove my point for me. And here is another reference. [9]. Now the question really is why does Anupam want all reference to this phenomen removed from the article? Is it a matter of wording? Let's play with the wording a bit until we arrive at a sentence or paragraph that we can achieve concensus on. Ioan.Church (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of the very insignificance of just a small subset of Anabaptists who have held to 7th-day Sabbatarianism. No one is saying they did not exist, but we are trying to say that they were such a little subset that they do not belong on a page about Anabaptist Theology. You have failed to provide evidence that they were a significant number, and that at any point in history keeping the 7th day as a Sabbath has been a part of mainstream Anabaptism. Mikeatnip (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You provided that evidence yourself in your quote above. Ioan.Church (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is a matter of WP:WEIGHT. It is not that 7th day Anabaptists have never existed. It is recognized that they have and do exist.

It is simply a matter of whether such a small sunset of Anabaptists are significant enough to mention in the article.

My stance is that because 2 of the Anabaptist theologians who promoted the 7th day view have their own Wikipedia articles and because the current groups promoting 7th day Anabaptism are at least twice the size of the Dunkards (whose position IS mentioned in the article) and unlike the Dunkards have blogs and YouTube channels and wiki sites and articles written by mainstream Anabaptist websites discussing the position they hold, therefore due WP:WEIGHT requires their position should also be mentioned as a parallel minority position.

Mikeatnip argues that: "The scholarly consensus is that 7th-day Sabbatarianism was only adhered to by a very small minority of early Anabaptists, and today only a very small minority of people who are called "Anabaptists" adhere to it. He also said "traditional Anabaptism has never held to Seventh-day Sabbatarianism except in very small numbers" suggesting 1%.

While I dispute the estimation of numbers I have made a concession not to dispute that it is a minority opinion and agree with him that there should be "no major emphasis on that one particular viewpoint" as long as the references to the theologian and groups which held that position are included in the article so as not to give the impression that Anabaptist theology is a monolith.

Anabaptists are fundamentalist observers of the New Testament Old faith as were the early Christians (who indisputable kept holy the Saturday Sabbath). 

Mikeatnip said "this point should reflect that the Sabbath-keepers were a small minority. My understanding is that the Sabbath-keepers were only a few congregations mostly in Silesia" and he recognizes that "some "Anabaptists do hold to keeping a Saturday Sabbath"

Anupam said "We do not want to mislead readers into thinking that a substantial portion of Anabaptists hold seventh-day Sabbatarian views". I agree and also say we do not want to mislead readers into thinking that no portion of Anabaptists have ever held seventh-day Sabbatarian views. The minority Dunkards are mentioned so should Glaidt and Fisher and the Dutch Anabaptists as well as the Moravians, Bohemians and Silesians.

I have also corrected my mistaken belief that "there are no Anabaptists who have ever worshipped on Saturday as the Lord's day" but I have also made clear "that was never intended to be the meaning which you took from the facts I inserted."

It had been accepted that John D. Roth is a respected scholar who says this: "Most North American Mennonites are skeptical about SDA theology, especially its teachings on Sabbath worship " meaning that the opposite is also true.

Also we agree that there have been Bohemian and Moravians and Silesian Anabaptists who have rested on Saturdays since before the 1500s. Mikeatnip said "there were a small number of early Anabaptists who kept a Saturday Sabbath. They were clustered in Silesia." And he said he is" personally OK with the modified sentence added to be in the article". He also brought This book (https://www.amazon.com/Andreas-Fischer-Sabbatarian-Anabaptists-Reformation/dp/0836112938/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488067459&sr=1-1&keywords=andreas+fischer) about Andreas Fischer as a reference.

I wanted to make clear that this has nothing to do with Saturday worship and of course that I was not saying that all of the modern denominations descended from the original Anabaptists still keep Holy the Saturday Sabbath. But I also wanted to point out that is equally wrong to give the impressiom as was implied in the article that all Anabaptists have adopted Dunkard 1st Day Sabbatarianism (whose total population was only 1035 by 2021 which means the Bei Abedan Schule is more noteworthy these days with over 2100 members as of 2023 and growing). Still, I also compromised and changed my position after I discovered that Dr. L. W. E. Rauwenhoff, professor of church history at Leyden in his ‘History of Protestantism,’ presents us with an extensive list of the beliefs of a sabbatarian branch of the Dutch-German Anabaptists of the 16th century who were in many ways similar to those of the Waldenses. The sixth article of faith says: “You must keep Saturday as the Day of the Lord, because God has ordained that day as such and not Sunday, that men have made for that.” [10]

It has already been established that the information on the Moravian Anabaptists and Oswald Glaidt and Andreas Fischer (Anabaptist) and the sabbatarian branch of the Dutch-German Anabaptists is factual.

We should also not forget that Anabaptist theology is practical and claim they obey everything in the NT so quoting the NT is the best way to describe Anabaptist beliefs (obviously excluding those groups who have made compromises with modern life).

All one has to do was Google search for 7th day or Sabbatarian Anabaptist / Anabaptists / Anabaptism and one can find plenty of very good leads.

[11] on page 412, "It is generally supposed that Seventh-day Sabbatarianism took its rise among the Anabaptists." even if the scholar disagrees the fact is that he reports the GENERAL SUPPOSITION which is backed up by the sources on Glaidt and Fisher and the Moravians and Dutch Anabaptists from whom derived the Seventh Day Men long before there was any 7th Day Baptist Church.

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16] here even Mikeatnip agrees that technically Seventh-day Adventists are "Anabaptists".

[17] talking about a Jewish perspective not just to be random without any relevance to the Anabaptist context.

[18] backs up the fact that a small number of Anabaptists adopted the 4th commandment of the Decalogue."

The point is clear that 7th day is not a dead topic among Anabaptists but very much a sticking talking point even if it were true that the majority wish it wasn't.

Furthermore respect for 7th day rest is mentioned in the Anabaptist World article as one of the points of common ground with Seventh Day Adventist. So even if the Ancient tradition is still preserved today by a minority (which the YouTube channel and the existence of the group websites linked to prove is anyway a bigger community than the Dunkards), the point is that it is still a well-attested and persistent substream worthy of mention. I remind that the current wording of the article plays down this fact.

The only conflict is over equal WP:WEIGHT. If the position of the Dunkard (who only had 1035 members 23 years ago with no websites no blogs no YouTube channels and no online encyclopedias) deserves mention then equally also must be mentioned the POSITION of the Moravian Anabaptists and Oswald Glaidt and Andreas Fischer (Anabaptist) and the sabbatarian branch of the Dutch-German Anabaptists as well as those living groups (with websites and YouTube channels and their own online encyclopedias etc.) It is very little to ask. Ioan.Church (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly: The Dunkard position is mentioned as a representative of the larger Amish and Mennonite position. While the Dunkard Brethren church is small in itself, it is a typical statement that could be found in a number of other, larger Anabaptist groups. Mikeatnip (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you will need to make that clear in the article. Meanwhile the wording of the section on the minority view should be cleaned up a bit. Ioan.Church (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to leave the section as it stands now following this edit. Ioan.Church (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I earlier was okay with leaving the mention of the early Sabbatarians, but I have been moved to agree with @Anupam in that:

1. The very early 7th-day Sabbatarian Anabaptists were such a small minority, and they died off within a few decades, that they do not represent "Anabaptist Theology" over the 500 years of Anabaptist history. Therefore they do not deserve space on this page. It is like the few Amish congregations in the 1800s that said baptism must take place in flowing water (stream baptism). This was a very minority view that has not endured, and they need no mention in the section about baptism.

2. No current Anabaptist denomination, other than some little, practically unknown group that you reference, holds to 7th-Day Sabbatarianism. This current group that you reference has no direct connection with the Glaidt groups, and appears to be a spinoff out of 7th-Day Adventists, not out of Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite, or German Baptist groups.

3. Although a few particular Anabaptist members in the mainline groups may personally hold to 7th-day Sabbatarianism, it is not the position of any known group.

4. Those within mainline Anabaptist groups who hold that the first day has to a degree replaced the seventh day as a day of rest number in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Several Anabaptist denominations hold that position, which the Dunkard Brethren church's statement represents.

For these reasons, including a fringe belief (7th-day Sabbatarianism) as part of "Anabaptist Theology" is not justified. Perhaps you could mention that in the article about 7th-Day Adventist groups or beliefs, but in Anabaptism proper, it is not and never has been part of their theology.

This is the consensus of myself and @Anupam (although he can correct me if I am misrepresenting him). With the contention that has happened, and the suspicious activity of an anonymous editor and a brand new editor reverting the same edits with practically no other edits to their accounts, this needs to be given pause. Perhaps other long-time editors can chime in. Mikeatnip (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing now is moving in the opposite direction from trying to find consensus. You will have to soften in order to get past this and move forward. So make a constructive suggestion. Wikipedia is not a democracy where the majority rules but is governed by the principal of concensus. So you will have to go back to your former attitude otherwise you are declaring edit war.Ioan.Church (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what you seem to be saying is, "If you don't agree with me, you are contentious and creating an edit war." Please reconsider. The "consensus" on this page is that two editors feel that 7th-day Sabbatarianism is not a part of Anabaptist Theology and give undue weight to a very minority position, while one editor disagrees. I am going to ask for semi page protection to keep anonymous editors from vandalizing. Mikeatnip (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that is exactly what you are saying to me Mike. What I am saying is return to the way you were before when we were having a constructive discussion and both made concessions otherwise there will be no concensus. A concensus between two people when three people or more are involved in the edits is no concensus at all. It would be beneficial all around if you can start making concessions to the feelings of others who are editing the page on this matter. It is really a very tiny thing which you are taking the wrong direction over. It doesn't hurt anyone to allow the facts on a minority opinion to have their place in the article. Please make a positive suggestion so that we can move forward on this. Best regards. Ioan.Church (talk) Ioan.Church (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the assessment of User:Mikeatnip; we will not have WP:UNDUE information in this article that does not reflect standard Anabaptist theology that is common to Anabaptist groups (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites, Bruderhof, River Brethren, Schwarzenau Brethren, Apostolic Christians and Charity Christians). Please note that this consensus has been recognized by administrative action that forbids User:Ioan.Church from disregarding this consensus through the addition of unsourced, contentious information. Thank you, Anupam^Talk 21:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]