Half-Way Covenant has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 3, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "The Shaping of American Congregationalism" by John Von Rohr, p. 119 in the section on the Half Way Covenant it says that participation in the Lord's Supper was not allowed those who had only been baptized but had not experienced adult conversion. Revmoran ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Several different sources give several different motivations behind the half way covenant. One author, Richard Lyman Bushman, in his book "From Puritan to Yankee," places the half way covenant in the context of efforts to maintain church discipline over the broader community as fewer individuals tooks steps to become full church members.
On page 4 of Robert Ferms article [1]about Congregationalism and the Founding of Middlebury College he writes: In 1648 the “full” members of the church were defined in the Cambridge Platform as those who were orthodox in belief, free from gross and open scandals, and who gave a public testimony of their regeneration. But not all among the new generations could meet those tests and therefore many could not be baptized, or cleansed from the guilt of original sin. Thus, the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 was adopted which allowed the children of unregenerate parents to be baptized. In 1677 Solomon Stoddard, pastor of the church in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, argued as a Calvinist that no one can tell who is regenerate so everyone should be allowed to come into the church (as long as they are orthodox and free from gross and open scandal) and take the Lord’s Supper as a means of regeneration. Later, in the 1740s and beyond, Jonathan Edwards and his successors, the New Divinity, sought to return to the stricter requirements of the Cambridge Platform and required public testimony of regeneration, even from those who were already members of the church. The result was Edwards’s dismissal from the Northampton Church, where he had become the minister upon Stoddard’s death in 1729.
This wiki article is just too simple-minded and doesn't reflect the complexity of the issue. Revmoran ( talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this soon.
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject. I did do many GA reviews on religious topics.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. I will make small corrections along the way, which I believe to be uncontroversial. Of course, we can discuss it if you don't agree with them.
to present their children for baptismIsn't there a separate term for adult baptism, as to distinguish this type of baptism from infant baptism?
Initially, the Platform included language declaring that baptism was open to all descendants of converted church members? Am I correct that the article discusses both believer's and infant baptism, but calls them both baptism? I felt this aspect was a bit confusing being an outsider.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thomas Hooker in Connecticut and John Davenport in New Haven ColonyMaybe just briefly designate who these people were: "church leader so-and-so ..."
Supporters argued that to deny grandchildren ...This sentence is a bit difficult to follow for an outsider reader
their parentsrefers to the parents of the grandchildren—the second generation.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1669, the Connecticut legislature decided to approve churches that practiced the Half-Way Covenant and those that opposed it.You mean they approved both churches that practiced it, and churches that opposed it?
Nineteenth-century CongregationalistsYou mean that these were historians as well, right?
into their own timeMeaning?
First Great AwakeningPlease put a time period in brackets, for readers from outside of America who don't want to follow the wikilink.
Please consider to include, at least briefly discuss, the following to meet GA standards:
The practice [Half-way Covenant] was abandoned by most churches in the 18th century when Jonathan Edwards and other leaders of the Great Awakening taught that church membership could be given only to convinced believers.. This part has not been mentioned yet.
Waiting for your response now.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
After a second reading, there are a few point of improvement:
The Half-Way Covenant's adoption has been interpreted by historians as signaling the decline of New England Puritanism ...This doesn't correspond very well with the "myth of declension" about which you are writing in the body of the text.
It also permitted churches divided over the issue to separate.Perhaps split or another term makes more sense.
Pope and Edmund Morgan found evidence of high levels of scrupulosity in Massachusetts.This reads slightly funny. Maybe just simplify the sentence a little: ... found that many church members were very scrupulous ...
I am passing the article for GA. Congratulations! I found it very interesting to read about the sincerity of the first Christian settlers in the US. If you have time, I'd request you to review the article Angulimala for GA. I've written it. Although the article's lead may appear to alien to some readers, it is actually an article with very universal themes. I'd appreciate your time to assess it. Secondly, if you submit a DYK, let me know and I might give you my thoughts on it, or even review it, should you like me to. I will see around. -- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Half-Way Covenant has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 3, 2018. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In "The Shaping of American Congregationalism" by John Von Rohr, p. 119 in the section on the Half Way Covenant it says that participation in the Lord's Supper was not allowed those who had only been baptized but had not experienced adult conversion. Revmoran ( talk) 01:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Several different sources give several different motivations behind the half way covenant. One author, Richard Lyman Bushman, in his book "From Puritan to Yankee," places the half way covenant in the context of efforts to maintain church discipline over the broader community as fewer individuals tooks steps to become full church members.
On page 4 of Robert Ferms article [1]about Congregationalism and the Founding of Middlebury College he writes: In 1648 the “full” members of the church were defined in the Cambridge Platform as those who were orthodox in belief, free from gross and open scandals, and who gave a public testimony of their regeneration. But not all among the new generations could meet those tests and therefore many could not be baptized, or cleansed from the guilt of original sin. Thus, the Half-Way Covenant of 1662 was adopted which allowed the children of unregenerate parents to be baptized. In 1677 Solomon Stoddard, pastor of the church in Northampton, Massachusetts, and the grandfather of Jonathan Edwards, argued as a Calvinist that no one can tell who is regenerate so everyone should be allowed to come into the church (as long as they are orthodox and free from gross and open scandal) and take the Lord’s Supper as a means of regeneration. Later, in the 1740s and beyond, Jonathan Edwards and his successors, the New Divinity, sought to return to the stricter requirements of the Cambridge Platform and required public testimony of regeneration, even from those who were already members of the church. The result was Edwards’s dismissal from the Northampton Church, where he had become the minister upon Stoddard’s death in 1729.
This wiki article is just too simple-minded and doesn't reflect the complexity of the issue. Revmoran ( talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this soon.
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject. I did do many GA reviews on religious topics.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. I will make small corrections along the way, which I believe to be uncontroversial. Of course, we can discuss it if you don't agree with them.
to present their children for baptismIsn't there a separate term for adult baptism, as to distinguish this type of baptism from infant baptism?
Initially, the Platform included language declaring that baptism was open to all descendants of converted church members? Am I correct that the article discusses both believer's and infant baptism, but calls them both baptism? I felt this aspect was a bit confusing being an outsider.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thomas Hooker in Connecticut and John Davenport in New Haven ColonyMaybe just briefly designate who these people were: "church leader so-and-so ..."
Supporters argued that to deny grandchildren ...This sentence is a bit difficult to follow for an outsider reader
their parentsrefers to the parents of the grandchildren—the second generation.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1669, the Connecticut legislature decided to approve churches that practiced the Half-Way Covenant and those that opposed it.You mean they approved both churches that practiced it, and churches that opposed it?
Nineteenth-century CongregationalistsYou mean that these were historians as well, right?
into their own timeMeaning?
First Great AwakeningPlease put a time period in brackets, for readers from outside of America who don't want to follow the wikilink.
Please consider to include, at least briefly discuss, the following to meet GA standards:
The practice [Half-way Covenant] was abandoned by most churches in the 18th century when Jonathan Edwards and other leaders of the Great Awakening taught that church membership could be given only to convinced believers.. This part has not been mentioned yet.
Waiting for your response now.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
After a second reading, there are a few point of improvement:
The Half-Way Covenant's adoption has been interpreted by historians as signaling the decline of New England Puritanism ...This doesn't correspond very well with the "myth of declension" about which you are writing in the body of the text.
It also permitted churches divided over the issue to separate.Perhaps split or another term makes more sense.
Pope and Edmund Morgan found evidence of high levels of scrupulosity in Massachusetts.This reads slightly funny. Maybe just simplify the sentence a little: ... found that many church members were very scrupulous ...
I am passing the article for GA. Congratulations! I found it very interesting to read about the sincerity of the first Christian settlers in the US. If you have time, I'd request you to review the article Angulimala for GA. I've written it. Although the article's lead may appear to alien to some readers, it is actually an article with very universal themes. I'd appreciate your time to assess it. Secondly, if you submit a DYK, let me know and I might give you my thoughts on it, or even review it, should you like me to. I will see around. -- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|