Talk:Peter Masters

Untitled

Where can we find the archive for the previous discussion. A strong case for WP:GNG can be made from secondary sources. Cpsoper (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)::

Peter Masters is a prolific writer, speaker and an influential thinker and preacher both in the UK and overseas. His articles have often been cited in contemporary publications, his books have been published into many different languages, including German, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Amharic, Polish, Hungarian, Russian, and Korean. The London Reformed Baptist Seminary and the annual School of Theology have had a widespread influence on hundreds of non conformist ministers and church workers both in the UK and overseas. The Sword and Trowel magazine he has edited since the early 1970s has a broad international subscription. The Tabernacle's Sunday School at the Tabernacle at its branch Sunday Schools have schooled many thousands of children, since the 1970s, and attracted at least one publication by the London press. His own ministry, and its continuance of Spurgeon's principles have been described in Spurgeon's biographies, for example Arnold Dallimore's Spurgeon: A New Biography (ISBN 9780851514512) and Robert J. Sheehan's Spurgeon and the Modern Church (ISBN 9780946462056). His book reviews have been sought and published on the back covers of numerous classic reformed reprints by US publishers.Cpsoper (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Have added some suggested categories, at W's suggestion, but this is an area I'm unfamiliar with and welcome help here.Cpsoper (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Have reverted removed category, substantial evidence exists from his reviews and publications that the subject is Calvinist and Reformed. Cpsoper (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Category listing

For some reason the page is listing by first name in categories, not by surname. Can anyone help with rectifying this? Cpsoper (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Default sort key added. Cpsoper (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Biography

There is no biographical information at all on this page. Where was he born? Where was he trained? Where else has he served? Also the word championed lacks objectivity. It should be replaced by something like advocated. This article gives the appearance of being produced by one of his Seminary students one evening after class. This means that eventually it will be deleted or damaged. A proper objective and fuller article will add to the dignity of the entry and its subject even if it less hagiographical 77.99.130.59 (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have altered the term 'champion', and you or other editors are welcome to add other biographical data you're aware of. I don't see correcting or improving an article as 'damage', nor have you provided any reason for its deletion. You may also wish to identify yourself. Cpsoper (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. This is in no way a biographical article about the subject but, rather, a publicity article for his various roles. 86.139.37.148 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Restorationism

Given its contemporary significance after the Lausanne controversy, I have added a short referenced section on this topic. Cpsoper (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we need better sources than you included. We need a reliable source saying that Masters opposes restorationism, not merely that he republished a book. (And it was included on the section on "Distinctive ministerial emphases" - we need a reliable source to say that this is one of Master's emphases.) StAnselm (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Republishing an old and short book of which the entire content of the second of four chapters comprises the rebuttal of this thesis is strong evidence of advocacy, Wakeman has a fairly short list of titles. Extracts from recorded expositions also confirm this. I have reverted the edit, but will seek to corroborate it further. I have however removed it from the 'distinctive ministerial emphases' section for now. Cpsoper (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, his own endorsement of Hendricksen's book [1] asks four questions, the first is 'Are the ‘restoration of the Jews’ promises being fulfilled today?', his review continues, 'No other book gives the answers so plainly and scripturally as this, for Dr Hendriksen was truly a master of brief and crystal-clear reasoning.' His own ministry indicates he holds the same view of the promises to Israel being the sole inheritance of the believing church see [2] @ 33.26, 42.46, 44.03, 45.23 for example, though it seems excessive to reference these or other examples in the page. Incidentally, I don't think either he or the congregation at the Tabernacle would regard this as anything like as controversial as the distinctive ministerial emphases already listed and referenced, and many Christians would probably agree. May I suggest an edit here? Cpsoper (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pls see StAnselm, Wakeman is an arm of his ministry and carefully reflects its doctrinal distinctives [3].

Opposition to Restorationism

Unlike two predecessors at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, John Gill and Charles Spurgeon, Peter Masters has opposed Restorationism, the view of some evangelical Protestants that Jewish return to Israel is a fulfilment of ancient Biblical prophecy, linked to a widespread return to the Messiah, and republished William Hendriksen's post 1967 work Israel in Prophecy, which he has endorsed. Cpsoper (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is still not good enough for a BLP. It is not enough that Wakeman is an "arm of his ministry". We don't generally include endorsements in our descriptions of people's views - we prefer an explicit publication. Even if Masters does agree with Hendriksen, what evidence is there that this is a major aspect of his thought? StAnselm (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear StAnselm, I find the propriety of this resistance difficult to understand, and I'm inclined to invite a third party to comment. The subject has republished an old work, which is a seminal work on the case against restorationism, as both its advocates and opponents would agree, the author has long since passed away, and re-publication implies more support than publication ab initio. Wakeman is Peter Master's wider ministry, do you doubt that - look again at the charity's trust statement? He has given a fulsome endorsement of the book, not in a partially edited quote, which might well be highly selective, but as its own publisher, both on the website, the book cover and his own publications in the bookshop he runs, and promoted its sale in the bookshop. His ministry has repeatedly confirmed and endorsed the same views of the church as the true Israel now being the believing church, the old promises being of no specific relevance to Jacob's literal descendants, as I've already demonstrated above, and more citations from his preaching could easily be added. What more evidence can you possibly seek? It's remarkable to me that this concern is restricted to only one of several aspects of the subject's ministry, each of which can properly be described as more controversial amongst Christians, though perhaps the ranking is debatable among general readers. This inclusion appears perfectly compatible with WP:BLP. As to whether the issue is 'major in his thinking' or not, how is that pertinent to inclusion, and how is it defined? It is an issue on which he has expressed a clear, firm opinion over a long period, despite differing with predecessors. Cpsoper (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

References

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 Peter Masters and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. 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: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." The sources are inadequate for the central point in the material removed in this edit, that is, they are inadequate to establish that "Peter Masters has opposed Restorationism." To imply that fact from the mere fact that Masters has republished a book opposed to Restorationism (and, frankly, I don't see how a citation to the book even proves that Masters republished it, though perhaps there's something in the book which establishes that, but I will AGF on that point), violates our policy prohibiting original research. Now, if that book had a new foreword by Masters (as republished works often do) speaking approvingly of what was written in the book about restorationism, the foreword might be a primary reliable source. Perhaps that's there, since I do not have a copy, I don't know whether it does or does not, but since the proposing editor hasn't raised such evidence I'm going to presume that it does not. Per the original research policy, we do not analyze evidence and come to conclusions about things here, we only report things which have been clearly reported in reliable sources. And StAnselm is correct that when dealing with living persons, our biographies of living persons policy makes all the usual rules about sourcing and avoiding original research even more binding when something is about a living person.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this response, and I appreciate your alacrity, but this is no Brooklyn Bridge sale! At your request, since I dissent, I reply briefly, before weighing an rfc. I'd welcome some comeback. The publishing house is run by and held in trust by the subject, see link above.The endorsement of the book on its website and its back cover contains the same fulsome and unreserved endorsement penned by the subject, quote below. The Tabernacle's own bookshop, which the subject administers, and solely selects the books, and writes their reviews, promotes this work in its literature. Please clarify why stating these matters, and with respect they are included above, is OR. His own ministry also includes references to the same doctrine contained in the book, commonly called Supersessionism, which the wiki page defines as 'Supersessionism is the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God's chosen people' with no residual specific promise to native unbelieving Israel. I've cited references to this above too, and the Hendriksen page includes a secondary source to highlight this. It's noteworthy because, wholly unlike his ministry in other respects, it does strike a new tone from four of his best known predecessors at the Tabernacle.

Originally penned in the 1950s [though Baker's copyright is from 1968] it presents the outstanding commentator's answers to some of the most important questions for Bible students namely, Are the 'restoration of the Jews' promises being fulfilled today? Is God finished with the Jews? What is meant by Israel? Are the blessings promised to Israel for the Jews or for the Church? No other book gives the answers so plainly and scripturally as this, for Dr Hendriksen was truly a master of brief and crystal-clear reasoning.

Peter Masters' review of 'Israel in Prophecy' Cpsoper (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at my standards as a 3O Wikipedian, above, I generally do not continue to participate in disputes where I've given a 3O (if I think that I'll want to do that I'll generally just weigh in as a regular editor rather than give an opinion under 3O). At this point, the most I'm willing to do is to say that I stand by my opinion and recommend that you read the OR policy all the way through, paying particular attention to the lede, to the PRIMARY section, and to the SYNTHESIS section, especially that part which says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated data from worker at the Tabernacle

Dear User:StAnselm We have noticed that some of the information on Peter Masters' page is slightly out of date and we'd like to update some of the details. Peter Masters has written more titles than is currently listed and his books have been translated into more languages such as most recently Arabic. What is the best way for us to update such things? Also, you deleted a mention to a wikipedia article, specifically . As you can see this article states that Peter Masters started the magazine and we think it makes sense to mention this on Peter Masters' own wikipedia page. What do you think? We don't think we're suggesting controversial or subjective changes just a few factual updates here and there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesargarciarincon (talk • contribs) 12:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Much of the new data is NPOV and sourced by the ISBN nos or the website cited. I have removed sections that may be viewed as partisan or unsourced. Pls discuss specific objections here and clarify them before reverting. Cesargarciarincon has correctly declared his COI, even if, as appears the case, he was unaware of it. For clarity's sake, I was once a member at the Tabernacle 20 yrs ago, but have had no direct connection with the fellowship there since, and never received funding or been employed. StAnselm's help still appreciated, and this is not intended as a substitute. Cpsoper (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

References