As a Reformed Baptist, you hit pretty much all the major points of distinction. I would also add a few distinctive elements that flow out of Covenant theology: -Salvation as union with Christ -A more sacramental view of Baptism -An emphasis on Christ's three-fold office (Prophet, Priest and King) -The Law/Gospel distinction -A rejection of pietism an revivalism -A preference for congregational singing vs. bands and special music I would argue that Reformed Baptists are much closer in theology and practice to conservative Presbyterian/Reformed folks (OPC, PCA, URCNA) than we are to Dispensational or broadly evangelical-type Baptists. There is also a marked difference between adhering to all of Reformed theology and those who hold to Calvinism, usually tacked on to an otherwise Dispensational theology. Believe it or not, Reformed Baptists (originally known as "Particular" Baptists) originally made up the majority of Baptists in the United States, and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention (most of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's original faculty had been educated at Princeton, which is Presbyterian).
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 True. But he is true as well. We would value Covenant Theology, the Doctrines of Grace, and the RPW. Also Associationalism is closer to Dutch Reformed polity than it is modern Baptist autonomy. So really, the similarity ends at dunking.
These videos are so helpful. I'm sure they aren't perfect, but I've never found someone who gives such an unbiased and clear cut summary of different theologies as you. Keep up the good work.
I consider myself reformed friendly. I’m definitely not reformed but I understand there points and do appreciate what they believe and stand for though we may be different in a lot of ways. I do believe we can still get along and work together to glorify God in everything
Traditionally most Baptists have no idea what you just said. They do know once saved always saved, saved before baptism, the Lords Supper is a remembrance (because it’s stamped in the wood of the table), and that premillennialism means we won’t be here. All American churches need catechisms for their congregations. Excellent video! (I was raised Baptist, but moved to a small town so now I’m Global Methodist.)
Well it may not be an exhaustive list, but it is certainly a good one. Thank you for the breakdown of the differences. It’s something I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around for years and this has helped clear it up a bit for me. While I grew up in dispensational churches, I have found myself lean ing towards a more reformed view on many of these issues. I’m not 100% certain, but this at least helps me see what I’m looking at.
For a good example of a Calvinistic vs. Reformed Baptist would be to compare John MacArthur vs. Voddie Baucham. John MacArthur affirms Calvinism but rejects reformed theology, covenant theology, Sabbatarianism, and the 1689 confession while affirming dispensational Zionism, whereas Voddie Baucham affirms Sabbatarianism, the 1689 confession, credobaptist covenant theology, Christian nationalism, and an amillennial eschatology. Some Reformed Baptists, like myself and Joel Webbon, also affirm theonomy to some extent as well as postmillennialism which still holds a metaphorical view of the millennium. All four of us are also cessationist. Great overview, sir!
@@convertedsinner9536 weird that you'd take my comment to a 3rd party as offensive to yourself. Really weird that my call for another to be humble has upset you. I'll pray for you.
@@ABLEARC Yeah dude. Maybe we can talk about "God's Generals" next and start worshipping saints since we would rather be sychophants for a denomination than biblical Christians. 🧐
Thank you again Ready to Harvest for your carefully, well-executed presentation of the church! You are greatly appreciate as your presented research has been so very helpful to us Christians in better understanding our different but fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Christ bless!
I love these denominational explorations because they help me sort out what my own doctrines are and aren't. For instance, it's useful to me to recognize places where I agree more with the Reformed Baptist and others where I agree more with other Baptists, even though I'm neither.
You sir have clearly done your homework. Very well done. You’ve represented our views very well. One point of clarification: the rejection of altar calls is not necessarily an outworking of our view of salvation, it’s an outworking of the Regulative Principle. Scripture nowhere authorizes nor gives an example of altar calls, therefore it is an unacceptable liturgical act. Another notable non-cessationist Reformed Baptist is C.H. Spurgeon. There’s a growing movement of Confessional Reformed Baptists who are non-Cessationist.
Anyone who is outside of the Catholic Church are Protestant and are following a false doctrine! Could not be any plainer than that! Been Baptist 30 years and never knew they had such a false doctrine!
As someone who spent 9 years in a Reformed church thinking we were Reformed Baptist or moving in that direction, this is a very good explanation. I applaud you. This is very good work and helpful.
Some considerations: Baptist Covenant Theology has important differences from the Covenant Theology of Presbyterians, Swiss Reformed, and Dutch Reformed (i.e., all other Reformed traditions). Furthermore, all other aspects of Reformed theology can be traced back in some way to Reformed Covenant Theology. Hence the popular saying, "Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology." Therefore, while it may be arguable for a Baptist who adheres to the 1689 Confession of Faith (and Covenant Theology as a consequence) to be classified as "Reformed," it is both impossible and a gross error to believe that dispensationalists can be considered Reformed (i know that error was not committed here, but some Baptist do) Reformed Baptists, until 40 years ago, called themselves Particular Baptists. The term "Reformed Baptist" is very recent and is a product of the point I make below. For centuries, the Reformed tradition viewed the sacraments as an essential mark of its identity. Calvin believed that credobaptism was a greater heresy than any error committed by Roman Catholics. The notion that this is a "non-essential" difference is a very recent development and reflects the influence of some low-church Presbyterians (especially within the PCA) who, after the divisions caused by Theological Liberalism in the 20th century, have sought alliances in a somewhat desperate manner.
@fighterofthenightman1057 I was baptised by sprinkling as an adult and I don't have kids, so infant baptism hasn't featured in my life - you could say that I'm almost a Baptist!
If anyone is interested in reading about how the early church worshiped read Saint Justin Martyr (110AD) letter. He explains in detail what happens at a Christian service.
Genuinely curious question regarding “Worship Styles,” asked as someone training for ordination in the CofE (which holds a reasonably broad variety of styles) at the moment: What qualifies the boundaries between a contemporary style of sung worship against a non-contemporary style? Are styles of worship we might consider today to be historical (in the sense that they’re not contemporary), not just styles that used to be contemporary at the time of their conception? Put differently, when King David was playing his lyre, would that not have been considered “contemporary”? I’m authentically intrigued about what it quantifiably is that positions non-contemporary styles of worship as distinct from contemporary Super interesting video too, great to broaden the horizons of understanding in such a gentle way - blessings and peace✌️
Contemporary means "belonging to or occurring in the present." So yes, it's a moving target, and the contemporary music of each time and culture will be different. By definition, whatever is the current standard is contemporary.
Generally, you do a pretty good job of helping folk navigate among communions not so familiar to themselves. This is a great service. You generally do this so I would not easily guess your own convictions; I suppose this makes you an effective journalist. 😊 Kudos! I add two general observations: o Many people in a number of communions do not know as well as they should (or at least as well as they might be presumed to know) the teachings of their own communions. Some, at least, if brought up to speed, might then run away screaming from said communion, whether rightly or wrongly. o There are communions that hold tradition to have authority equal to (superior to?) Scripture. It is not surprising, then, to find doctrinal points inconsistent with Scripture within such communions. But there exist other communions which claim to hold fast to Scripture and yet hold some doctrines most scholars, or even common students of the English language, would find also inconsistent with Scripture, and which seem not to notice the discrepancy. Pointing no fingers here; folk can observe for themselves what they encounter.
@@ericphillips8006 Yes, they are perhaps even more different than what this video suggests, as some of the reformed baptists are inclined to baptize babies (Gavin Ortuld is one who thinks it is important if I recall) they might as well be a completely different denomination
I enjoy your videos about various sects of Christianity. I was raised in a Baptist home where the rule was all offered services are attended. Presently I follow and attend Calvary Chapel churches, mainly for their expository preaching. I thought I knew a lot from attending a topically oriented church, but I did not. I miss hymns and "fire and brimstone" preaching. I may have to track down an expository Baptist congregation for attending services.
Interesting. I'm an evangelical Baptist and not a Reformed Baptist, but there are certain elements I agree with. I tend to prefer a more expository type of preaching, and I tend to prefer a more traditional worship style than the rock concert like style that happens in many evangelical churches. However, I reject Calvinist soteriology, and I am a limited continuationist. Perhaps it is the influence from the Free Will Baptist pastor I grew up under, but more and more, I find myself in between the 2 camps.
Do I get the two view points on salvation right or wrong? Reformed Baptist starting point on salvation: God is Sovereign as in fully controlling all that comes to pass. Man has an inability to fully follow the Law or respond positively to God's revelation without first receiving an effectual grace that spiritually regenerates the spiritually dead person. Regeneration comes before faith because it enables the person to place faith in God. By God’s election before creation, He picked the few who shall receive this grace and rejected the many. Non-Reformed Baptist starting point on salvation: God is Sovereign over heaven and earth. He chose to grace us with free will so that we might leave our deadness and choose life in Him. Anyone mentally competent can choose Him. Regeneration comes after looking upon the Son in faith just as the Hebrews were healed after looking upon the Bronze Serpent. Further, man has an inability to fully follow the Law but is enabled to choose God fully due to His light of revelation and the graces He has provided.
Well said. The first view gives nothing but hopelessness. There is no "Good News" there. The second view is full of good news. You can be saved by simply trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross and substitutionary atonement for your sins by the shedding of His blood and resurrection on the third day.
@@LoveClassicMusic0205 on the contrary, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world (not just the Elect) then why would anyone be going to hell? If the price for everyone's sin has already been paid, there is nothing more for anyone to atone for, therefore no hell for anyone. To reject the Elect, you remove the distinction between Christian and non-Christian; that we have been saved.
@@philc.2504 To reject "elect" and to believe that Christ's death on cross paid for the sin of all humans is wrongly understood by most in the reformed group. The payment for sin must be accepted by each person. If one doesn't accept the payment it's not applied to that individual; therefore they are lost and spend eternally in hell. The word "elect" has to do with service, not salvation. All Israel in the Old Testament were chosen but not all were eternally saved. In the New Testament Judas Iscaret was elected by God for an act of service to betray Christ. Scripture states that Judas is a child of the devil, clearly indicating he was not saved. (John 6:70-71).
@@EliB207 -- A lot more than four; the 2110 edition of HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES lists 29 groups in the chapter on Baptist churches (and no doubt there were/are other groups the editors were unaware of or could find no information for).
Presbyterian here - seems you nailed everything except that the Covenant of Redemption, at least in traditional Reformed doctrine, also includes the Holy Spirit. The Father agrees to call, the Son agrees to sacrifice, and the Spirit agrees to apply.
So what do Psalms singing, non-dancing churches do when they sing the commands to participate in dance? And what do the psalms-singing, non-instrumental churches do with all the varied commands to praise God with all available instruments? Such dilemmas!
I have been a Southern Baptist for several years. I have never attended a Baptist church that held to any of these areas 100%. I do think I might lean toward being a reformed Baptist.
While Calvinistic Reformed Baptists would disagree with this, there are Reformed Arminian Baptists such as Free Will Baptists. Many, if not most, Free Will Baptists in the National Association of Free Will Baptists consider themselves to be Reformed Arminians. Read the works of J. Matthew Pinson, Robert Picirilli, and F. Leroy Forlines, among others, for more details.
Takes a lot of grace to fit in with most Christian groups who hold to widely different theological views. That said I like to ask any professing Christian if they can explain the gospel. If they waver on who Christ is, the necessity for Christ to shed His holy blood on a cross to pay the atonement for our sins. If they don't believe in Christ death and resurrection on the third day. If they don't believe we are saved only by grace by confessing that we ourselves our sinners and only Christ, the Son of God can grant salvation then maybe their goats no matter what their association is with any denomination.
Considering Voddie Bauchum, Paul Washer, Charles Spurgeon and many such as these. Yes they have worship down pat and have made a greater influence than the Presbyterians. I would have not even known about reformed theology if it wasn't through Paul Washer. Just about all the Presbyterians I know are dead, lifeless and joyless.
Watch my video on Reformed Baptist to learn about their beliefs on baptism. In this video I only mention differences between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists, and mode and candidates of Baptism is not an area that there is a difference.
Reformed isn't the same as Reformation. The reformation wasn't about Calvinism. It was about bringing the gospel back into the Church. The true reformation is Lutheran
@Dilley_G45 You kinda have it right! There was actually three major reformations. Luther's was just one and it's way different than what you see today in lutheranism...
@rsm1161 Some modern Lutheran churches are Lutherans in name only. Same as PCUSA and UMC are heretics so are heretical Lutheran Churches. But confessional Lutherans like AALC or WELS or LCMS or LCP don't have gay marriage or female pastors. But the whole point of the reformation was to go back to the Bible not to add or take from it or change doctrine. That's what Rome did and then Calvin also.
🎯🎯The "Reformed" are fine with that. 🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂ ...Rest assured, it isn't. The Gospel is so simple even a child can understand it... Calvinism... not so much. They believe Jesus only provided a way of salvation for for a fraction of people and everyone else is 'doomed from the womb'... I.e., Voddie Bacham's popular "vipers in diapers" . They don't talk about it much, ( if I believed it I wouldn't either), But, in Reformed theology there is no escaping that most infants, born and unborn, have been decreed by God to eternal damnation... for his glory. And this has nothing to do with anything they will ever do. It's God's, unchangeable, eternal decree. Any attempt to consider a period of 'grace' for the souls of those who die in miscarriage, abortion, toddlers, the mentally ill, etc... undermines "Unconditional Election", which is a foundational claim of the doctrine. Which they try to support from Eph. 1, that all those "elected" to be saved are "Chosen in Christ" before the foundation of the world. This specifically excludes any period of "grace" commonly used to sooth the minds of family members experiencing grief after losing a baby. It's more likely their little baby is burning in Hell... if their doctrine is correct. Thank God it isn't.
That's part of the beauty of Christianity, it is simple enough that most children could understand it, yet it is deep enough that you could spend your entire life delving into the depths of scripture and never reach the bottom.
I attend & consider myself as a Baptist & although I've spent over the past ten years + really trying to understand what it is that I believe & why, including having read through & studied the Bible, I still find it difficult to completely wrap my mind around all the facets of my faith. The one conclusion I have come to though is that Baptist in general are the closest to Biblical Christianity than any other denomination.
Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays not commanded anywhere in the Bible. They serve other gods and we're breaking the ten commandments when we celebrate them so we gotta repent. If you read Romans 1:22-27, serving other gods is the reason why we're living in Sodom right now. Also check Ezekiel 20:19-21, the Sabbath is Saturday morning to Sunday morning and it's the sign between God and his people, so if you don't have that sign God is gonna pour out his wrath upon you in tribulation. And read Isaiah 66:15-17, people who eat unclean like pork and shellfish are going to be consumed by fire in the tribulation. So repent from eating it And the Messiah's name isn't Jesus, it's Yeshua, he comes in the Father's name Yehovah. He warned us about another coming in his own name in John 5:42-43 because you don't have the love of God in you (the ten commandments - 1 John 5:2-3).
Are Reformed Baptist Reformed? John Calvin: "For those who, on pretense of the incapacity of infants, exclude them from baptism, not only unjustly DEFRAUD them of the grace of divine adoption, but WICKEDLY tear away from them that which had been given them by God. For the promise of salvation, which is contained in baptism, is not less applicable to the children of believers than it was to the infants of the Jews under the Old Testament." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.8) Charles Hodge: "The children of believing parents have, therefore, as much right to the ordinances of the church as adults. To deny them this right is to OBLITERATE one of the grand peculiarities of the plan of redemption." (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 588) B. B. Warfield: "The Anabaptist SECTS... deny that the children of believers have a right to be admitted to membership in the church. In doing so, they undermine the continuity of the covenant of grace, which is a cornerstone of Reformed theology." (The Plan of Salvation, Chapter 4) Francis Turretin: "The visible church is defined as the society of those who profess the true religion and their children. That infants belong to the church and ought to be counted among its members is expressly proved… It cannot be denied without subverting the covenant." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 18.6.3) The Synod of Dort: "Since we must make judgments about God's will from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they are included with their parents, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy." (Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17) Heinrich Bullinger: "The sacraments of the Old and New Testaments are the same in substance... Therefore, baptism has come in place of circumcision." (Decades, Fourth Decade, Sermon 9) The Westminster Confession of Faith: "Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.4) Herman Witsius: "The covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17 is the same covenant of grace revealed in the New Testament... The right of infants to the covenant sign remains." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Book 4, Chapter 9) I appreciate your effort, excitement, and teaching with this video, but I can't say reformed Baptist are part of the same theological tradition as me (Reformed) and be intellectually honest at the same time. It is really a different tradition. As you can see, Infant Baptism is an essential issue for our tradition.
you refer to circumcision as grounds for baptising children of believers but how can you include the females when OT theology excluded them ,so why include them now? Just wondering? Also if these children of believers are accounted in the covenant for salvation along with their parents how do you account for the many children who turn away from this covenant as they grow up an honest question?
@margaretha907 I recommend watching Rev Don Baker's TH-cam video called " Biblical case for Infant Baptism". He has just released it. As a minister, he can explain that much better them me.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Nothing, explicit is said about infant baptisms in the Bible it is just surmised from the fact that households were baptised that there must have been children included, very thin ice on which to build a case! Even in the early centuries of the church take the case of Monica Augustin's mother,a most godly woman you would have thought that she would have had him baptised as an infant ,but no! He was baptised after conversion. Also how do you account for the fact that there are so many adult baptistries in Asia minor when you really only need a jug of water for even adults ,never mind children?
He won’t typically respond in comments. But my understanding is he’s a professor at an Independent Baptist University, currently in North Dakota. If I’m wrong please correct me
"God has unchangeably decreed everything that will come to pass, but He is not the author of sin." 4:06 There is only one possible way that this can make any sense whatsoever: if "unchangeably decreed" means that God has decreed that all human actions are completely free. The "decree" is that free will is real and genuine and that everything which humans do, i.e., whatever comes to pass in the human realm, is what God wanted to happen-because God wants free will to exist. In the 12th century, Maimonides explained this concept carefully: "Know that everything is done according to God’s desire, even though our actions are given over to our power. How does this work? Just as the Creator desires that fire and air rise above while water and earth go down below, and the wheel turns in a circle, and so too all of the other creations in the world follow the way that God desired for them, so also God desired that a person should have free will and everything be given over to him, and that there should be nothing which forces or compels him, but he of his own will and consciousness-which God has given him-may do whatever a person can do."
I always appreciate your deliberately descriptive angle in videos like this. It helps them be informative without pressing down in judgment. This one was well done. I've been in a southern Baptist church for almost 20 years and am now attending a PCA Presbyterian church, so a lot of this hit home for me. I probably fall into that Reformed Baptist category, even if I love my PCA church.
Non reformed Baptist believe a person must be born again in Christ. The reformed Baptist believes that assurance of salvation is unknowable, but believing in the teachings of Augustine and Calvin could be a sign or work that proves god might want you.
I get what you explained, and your research is fantastic. But I have a fundamental question...If they are all BAPTISTS, then what does the word Baptist even mean, since there are so many differences? Honestly, with this laundry list of differences, they could be easily be called Presbyterian or Church of Christ, or whatever you wish. So why are they Baptists at all?
They are called 'Baptists' due to their distinctive of only baptising professing Christian believers via 'believer's baptism', as opposed to most of the rest of worldwide Christianity, which baptise the families of believers (including children, by 'infant baptism').
I was raised lutheran , false gospel because they say water baptizing babys are saved , bible says we get water baptized because we are saved not to be saved. Total opposite and veary critical . Im just glad God saved me and called me out of false teaching .
We are Calvinists and are also confessional 1689 . We are also non Dispensational and are instead covenantal in our interpretation of scripture. We are advocates of the regulative principle of worship.
I just love all the comments on Reformed , Calvinism, church creeds, confessions, covenant theology, man vs. man, beliefs, by-laws, constitutions, Arminianism, and this other "stuff" that is extra-biblical. Thanks for sharing the Gospel.
The good news is: we are not saved by our membership and having a religion in this planet.... Only by the grace and provision of God thru the death and resurrection of Christ!!!
As a Reformed Baptist, you hit pretty much all the major points of distinction. I would also add a few distinctive elements that flow out of Covenant theology:
-Salvation as union with Christ
-A more sacramental view of Baptism
-An emphasis on Christ's three-fold office (Prophet, Priest and King)
-The Law/Gospel distinction
-A rejection of pietism an revivalism
-A preference for congregational singing vs. bands and special music
I would argue that Reformed Baptists are much closer in theology and practice to conservative Presbyterian/Reformed folks (OPC, PCA, URCNA) than we are to Dispensational or broadly evangelical-type Baptists. There is also a marked difference between adhering to all of Reformed theology and those who hold to Calvinism, usually tacked on to an otherwise Dispensational theology.
Believe it or not, Reformed Baptists (originally known as "Particular" Baptists) originally made up the majority of Baptists in the United States, and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention (most of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's original faculty had been educated at Princeton, which is Presbyterian).
You're closer to Congregationalists than to Presbyterians
@@noahtylerpritchett2682I’d agree. The Savoy Declaration is closer to the 1689 than the Westminster.
@@Hark1677 i actually read a good portent of the Savoy declaration interestingly enough
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 That's true.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 True. But he is true as well. We would value Covenant Theology, the Doctrines of Grace, and the RPW. Also Associationalism is closer to Dutch Reformed polity than it is modern Baptist autonomy. So really, the similarity ends at dunking.
I am always amazed at your ability to succinctly and precisely summarize these types of differences.
Excellent summary! I can confirm a lot of this from my own experience in both types of congregation.
What a lot of research you must have done to create this video! I truly appreciate it!
He's a Baptists himself...he knows
Thank you for this and your other video on Reformed Baptists, good stuff!
I second this.
These videos are so helpful. I'm sure they aren't perfect, but I've never found someone who gives such an unbiased and clear cut summary of different theologies as you. Keep up the good work.
I consider myself reformed friendly. I’m definitely not reformed but I understand there points and do appreciate what they believe and stand for though we may be different in a lot of ways. I do believe we can still get along and work together to glorify God in everything
It's so rare to find someone genuine like yourself. I really appreciate what you said. God bless you, brother.
Traditionally most Baptists have no idea what you just said. They do know once saved always saved, saved before baptism, the Lords Supper is a remembrance (because it’s stamped in the wood of the table), and that premillennialism means we won’t be here.
All American churches need catechisms for their congregations.
Excellent video!
(I was raised Baptist, but moved to a small town so now I’m Global Methodist.)
“Stamped in the wood of the table”… it’s exactly what Jesus said!
anamnesis
Did you mean pre-trib?
You sound hurt.
Most Baptists aren't reformed Baptists, hence why they wouldn't be too familiar with these things
Very interesting. I'm not a Baptist in any form but I do agree with a number of their practices/positions.
Well it may not be an exhaustive list, but it is certainly a good one. Thank you for the breakdown of the differences. It’s something I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around for years and this has helped clear it up a bit for me. While I grew up in dispensational churches, I have found myself lean ing towards a more reformed view on many of these issues. I’m not 100% certain, but this at least helps me see what I’m looking at.
Yes they. You have hit the key points. Being a reformed Baptist this is great.
Thank you for your study and exposition - as usual
I’ve been waiting for this video for about 4 years! In fact, I think I told you when I met you!
Amazing summary of both! Well done!
Led worship in a 1689 LBC church for 5 years. You hit every major distinction perfectly. Well done 👍
For a good example of a Calvinistic vs. Reformed Baptist would be to compare John MacArthur vs. Voddie Baucham. John MacArthur affirms Calvinism but rejects reformed theology, covenant theology, Sabbatarianism, and the 1689 confession while affirming dispensational Zionism, whereas Voddie Baucham affirms Sabbatarianism, the 1689 confession, credobaptist covenant theology, Christian nationalism, and an amillennial eschatology. Some Reformed Baptists, like myself and Joel Webbon, also affirm theonomy to some extent as well as postmillennialism which still holds a metaphorical view of the millennium. All four of us are also cessationist. Great overview, sir!
Weird you'd put your views on the same level as those actual giants of the field. You put yourself on the same stage as those men. Step down.
@@ABLEARC OK, man worshipper. Everyone is on the same level in Christ.
@@convertedsinner9536 weird that you'd take my comment to a 3rd party as offensive to yourself. Really weird that my call for another to be humble has upset you. I'll pray for you.
@@ABLEARCthey are men. Many wise, intelligent Christlike men, but men all the same.
@@ABLEARC Yeah dude. Maybe we can talk about "God's Generals" next and start worshipping saints since we would rather be sychophants for a denomination than biblical Christians. 🧐
Thank you again Ready to Harvest for your carefully, well-executed presentation of the church! You are greatly appreciate as your presented research has been so very helpful to us Christians in better understanding our different but fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Christ bless!
Another great video! Will be using it to explain my views to people asking what I mean by reformed Baptist
I love these denominational explorations because they help me sort out what my own doctrines are and aren't. For instance, it's useful to me to recognize places where I agree more with the Reformed Baptist and others where I agree more with other Baptists, even though I'm neither.
This is good.
My one critique is that theonomy puts one outside of, not just Reformed Baptists, but Baptists in general.
I see all the beliefs are aligned to what I believe in . Thank you brother.
As an RB I approve this message! 👍
You sir have clearly done your homework. Very well done. You’ve represented our views very well.
One point of clarification: the rejection of altar calls is not necessarily an outworking of our view of salvation, it’s an outworking of the Regulative Principle. Scripture nowhere authorizes nor gives an example of altar calls, therefore it is an unacceptable liturgical act.
Another notable non-cessationist Reformed Baptist is C.H. Spurgeon. There’s a growing movement of Confessional Reformed Baptists who are non-Cessationist.
You should do a video on Baptists who think they’re Protestants versus Baptists who think they’re not Protestants.
Anyone who is outside of the Catholic Church are Protestant and are following a false doctrine! Could not be any plainer than that! Been Baptist 30 years and never knew they had such a false doctrine!
Including the writings from Rome who distinguished baptists from Protestants? It gets more muddy once the sects came to America.
Not exhaustive but exceptionally thorough and very accurate. Thank you.
though some of us do not hold to the "free offer" of the Gospel!
As someone who spent 9 years in a Reformed church thinking we were Reformed Baptist or moving in that direction, this is a very good explanation.
I applaud you. This is very good work and helpful.
Very well done as always!!!
1689 RB here. Thought you did a fine job summarizing the differences. I would be in a couple of the minorities within RB as post-mill/theonomic.
It is a classic case of what Luther called "the two ditches." Stay sober and stay on the donkey. Don't fall off and into a ditch. 😂
Great job. As a reformed baptist, this is accurate.
Very good breakdown on the traditions of men.
Would be interesting to see a comparison of Baptist tradition to 1st century Christian practices.
Ive heard of RINOs now I know about RBINOs!😅
Very informative! God bless your ministry, brother!
I really like the graphics in this video
Some considerations:
Baptist Covenant Theology has important differences from the Covenant Theology of Presbyterians, Swiss Reformed, and Dutch Reformed (i.e., all other Reformed traditions). Furthermore, all other aspects of Reformed theology can be traced back in some way to Reformed Covenant Theology. Hence the popular saying, "Reformed Theology is Covenant Theology." Therefore, while it may be arguable for a Baptist who adheres to the 1689 Confession of Faith (and Covenant Theology as a consequence) to be classified as "Reformed," it is both impossible and a gross error to believe that dispensationalists can be considered Reformed (i know that error was not committed here, but some Baptist do)
Reformed Baptists, until 40 years ago, called themselves Particular Baptists. The term "Reformed Baptist" is very recent and is a product of the point I make below.
For centuries, the Reformed tradition viewed the sacraments as an essential mark of its identity. Calvin believed that credobaptism was a greater heresy than any error committed by Roman Catholics. The notion that this is a "non-essential" difference is a very recent development and reflects the influence of some low-church Presbyterians (especially within the PCA) who, after the divisions caused by Theological Liberalism in the 20th century, have sought alliances in a somewhat desperate manner.
I'm a Presbyterian - it wouldn't be too difficult to guess which of the two types of churches discussed in this video I prefer…
Hopefully neither, because infant baptism is essential to Reformed theology!
@fighterofthenightman1057 I was baptised by sprinkling as an adult and I don't have kids, so infant baptism hasn't featured in my life - you could say that I'm almost a Baptist!
@@fighterofthenightman1057 -- Pedobaptists are semi-reformed.
@@amac7097 It doesn’t matter if you yourself were baptised as an infant, infant baptism is still a core ideal of reformed theology
@simonethompson6190 I hope you don’t believe in presumptive regeneration.
If anyone is interested in reading about how the early church worshiped read Saint Justin Martyr (110AD) letter. He explains in detail what happens at a Christian service.
"Saint Justin Martyr (110AD) letter."
Great exposition! I’m going to repeat my request for a deep dive into the Missionary Church :)
Genuinely curious question regarding “Worship Styles,” asked as someone training for ordination in the CofE (which holds a reasonably broad variety of styles) at the moment:
What qualifies the boundaries between a contemporary style of sung worship against a non-contemporary style? Are styles of worship we might consider today to be historical (in the sense that they’re not contemporary), not just styles that used to be contemporary at the time of their conception? Put differently, when King David was playing his lyre, would that not have been considered “contemporary”? I’m authentically intrigued about what it quantifiably is that positions non-contemporary styles of worship as distinct from contemporary
Super interesting video too, great to broaden the horizons of understanding in such a gentle way - blessings and peace✌️
Contemporary means "belonging to or occurring in the present." So yes, it's a moving target, and the contemporary music of each time and culture will be different. By definition, whatever is the current standard is contemporary.
Perfect. What i needed to hear
1689 reformed Baptist who is a theonomist and a continuationist. We are a rare breed but we are joy filled warriors in the Lords army!
1:13 thanks for letting us fight it out. We're good at that one. 😂
Generally, you do a pretty good job of helping folk navigate among communions not so familiar to themselves. This is a great service. You generally do this so I would not easily guess your own convictions; I suppose this makes you an effective journalist. 😊 Kudos!
I add two general observations:
o Many people in a number of communions do not know as well as they should (or at least as well as they might be presumed to know) the teachings of their own communions. Some, at least, if brought up to speed, might then run away screaming from said communion, whether rightly or wrongly.
o There are communions that hold tradition to have authority equal to (superior to?) Scripture. It is not surprising, then, to find doctrinal points inconsistent with Scripture within such communions. But there exist other communions which claim to hold fast to Scripture and yet hold some doctrines most scholars, or even common students of the English language, would find also inconsistent with Scripture, and which seem not to notice the discrepancy. Pointing no fingers here; folk can observe for themselves what they encounter.
Answer: they are _very_ different
Agree. Great point
Yes, yes we are.
And very biblical
But are they really?
@@ericphillips8006 Yes, they are perhaps even more different than what this video suggests, as some of the reformed baptists are inclined to baptize babies (Gavin Ortuld is one who thinks it is important if I recall) they might as well be a completely different denomination
I enjoy your videos about various sects of Christianity. I was raised in a Baptist home where the rule was all offered services are attended. Presently I follow and attend Calvary Chapel churches, mainly for their expository preaching. I thought I knew a lot from attending a topically oriented church, but I did not. I miss hymns and "fire and brimstone" preaching. I may have to track down an expository Baptist congregation for attending services.
Interesting. I'm an evangelical Baptist and not a Reformed Baptist, but there are certain elements I agree with. I tend to prefer a more expository type of preaching, and I tend to prefer a more traditional worship style than the rock concert like style that happens in many evangelical churches. However, I reject Calvinist soteriology, and I am a limited continuationist. Perhaps it is the influence from the Free Will Baptist pastor I grew up under, but more and more, I find myself in between the 2 camps.
Really like the modern English version of that confession put out by Founders
Thanks for the video. Very helpful
I want to know more so I will be listening here and there and I hope to get clear and trustworthy explanations. Thanks
Thank you for this video. It was very informative.
Well explained
Do I get the two view points on salvation right or wrong?
Reformed Baptist starting point on salvation: God is Sovereign as in fully controlling all that comes to pass. Man has an inability to fully follow the Law or respond positively to God's revelation without first receiving an effectual grace that spiritually regenerates the spiritually dead person. Regeneration comes before faith because it enables the person to place faith in God. By God’s election before creation, He picked the few who shall receive this grace and rejected the many.
Non-Reformed Baptist starting point on salvation: God is Sovereign over heaven and earth. He chose to grace us with free will so that we might leave our deadness and choose life in Him. Anyone mentally competent can choose Him. Regeneration comes after looking upon the Son in faith just as the Hebrews were healed after looking upon the Bronze Serpent. Further, man has an inability to fully follow the Law but is enabled to choose God fully due to His light of revelation and the graces He has provided.
Well said. The first view gives nothing but hopelessness. There is no "Good News" there. The second view is full of good news. You can be saved by simply trusting in Christ's finished work on the cross and substitutionary atonement for your sins by the shedding of His blood and resurrection on the third day.
@@LoveClassicMusic0205 on the contrary, if Christ died for the sins of the whole world (not just the Elect) then why would anyone be going to hell? If the price for everyone's sin has already been paid, there is nothing more for anyone to atone for, therefore no hell for anyone. To reject the Elect, you remove the distinction between Christian and non-Christian; that we have been saved.
@@philc.2504
To reject "elect" and to believe that Christ's death on cross paid for the sin of all humans is wrongly understood by most in the reformed group. The payment for sin must be accepted by each person. If one doesn't accept the payment it's not applied to that individual; therefore they are lost and spend eternally in hell.
The word "elect" has to do with service, not salvation. All Israel in the Old Testament were chosen but not all were eternally saved. In the New Testament Judas Iscaret was elected by God for an act of service to betray Christ. Scripture states that Judas is a child of the devil, clearly indicating he was not saved. (John 6:70-71).
For the record, Calvinism is satanic, and there's absolutely nothing in the Bible supporting the idea of regeneration preceding faith.
Exactly how many different Baptist denominations exist?
Probably 4 I only about 2
@@EliB207 -- A lot more than four; the 2110 edition of HANDBOOK OF DENOMINATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES lists 29 groups in the chapter on Baptist churches (and no doubt there were/are other groups the editors were unaware of or could find no information for).
Good timing. I just started a book series on the reformation movement.
Sick burn at the end. If you call yourself something but don’t hold to the beliefs, you’re probably not that thing
Presbyterian here - seems you nailed everything except that the Covenant of Redemption, at least in traditional Reformed doctrine, also includes the Holy Spirit. The Father agrees to call, the Son agrees to sacrifice, and the Spirit agrees to apply.
Concerning the Sabbath: I am surprised you did not mention Seventh Day Baptists.
So what do Psalms singing, non-dancing churches do when they sing the commands to participate in dance?
And what do the psalms-singing, non-instrumental churches do with all the varied commands to praise God with all available instruments?
Such dilemmas!
As someone in such a church, I say those are good questions.
I have been a Southern Baptist for several years. I have never attended a Baptist church that held to any of these areas 100%. I do think I might lean toward being a reformed Baptist.
Very informative. Thank you!
Thanks for the video. There are also Calvinist fundamental Baptists and Calvinist Depensational Baptists and various mixtures of theological systems.
Oh my! So many nuances!
Yes I have visited churches in all those stripes.
You nailed it.
I always just think of them as Presbyterians without the Presbyters
How? Well, I WAS Baptist, but I got better.
🤣 This guy is learning all these details but can't see the whole picture of craziness.
While Calvinistic Reformed Baptists would disagree with this, there are Reformed Arminian Baptists such as Free Will Baptists. Many, if not most, Free Will Baptists in the National Association of Free Will Baptists consider themselves to be Reformed Arminians. Read the works of J. Matthew Pinson, Robert Picirilli, and F. Leroy Forlines, among others, for more details.
Takes a lot of grace to fit in with most Christian groups who hold to widely different theological views. That said I like to ask any professing Christian if they can explain the gospel. If they waver on who Christ is, the necessity for Christ to shed His holy blood on a cross to pay the atonement for our sins. If they don't believe in Christ death and resurrection on the third day. If they don't believe we are saved only by grace by confessing that we ourselves our sinners and only Christ, the Son of God can grant salvation then maybe their goats no matter what their association is with any denomination.
Reformed Baptist sound like they are on the right track of proper worship.
Watch the Tom Wadsworth series on worship
Considering Voddie Bauchum, Paul Washer, Charles Spurgeon and many such as these. Yes they have worship down pat and have made a greater influence than the Presbyterians. I would have not even known about reformed theology if it wasn't through Paul Washer. Just about all the Presbyterians I know are dead, lifeless and joyless.
You made no mention of their view on baptism, though I am guessing that nearly all of them hold to the belief in believers' baptism by immersion.
Watch my video on Reformed Baptist to learn about their beliefs on baptism. In this video I only mention differences between Reformed Baptists and other Baptists, and mode and candidates of Baptism is not an area that there is a difference.
Thank you, very informative
Nice job on this video
THANK YOU! Reformed = CCC Confessional, Covenant Theology, and Calvinist.
@@rsm1161
So much easier to say “Reformed,” isn’t it?
Yes! Haha
Reformed isn't the same as Reformation. The reformation wasn't about Calvinism. It was about bringing the gospel back into the Church. The true reformation is Lutheran
@Dilley_G45 You kinda have it right! There was actually three major reformations. Luther's was just one and it's way different than what you see today in lutheranism...
@rsm1161 Some modern Lutheran churches are Lutherans in name only. Same as PCUSA and UMC are heretics so are heretical Lutheran Churches. But confessional Lutherans like AALC or WELS or LCMS or LCP don't have gay marriage or female pastors. But the whole point of the reformation was to go back to the Bible not to add or take from it or change doctrine. That's what Rome did and then Calvin also.
I have a question, which denomination does not celebrate Christmas?
You can be Calvinistic and dispensational or Calvinistic and Covenantal. It’s not a separate element.
Some Southern Baptists recently hold to Progressive Covenantalism in our Biblical Theology.
If being a Christian is this complicated (I believe it is simple) most common people are doomed.
🎯🎯The "Reformed" are fine with that. 🤦🏻♂🤦🏻♂ ...Rest assured, it isn't. The Gospel is so simple even a child can understand it... Calvinism... not so much. They believe Jesus only provided a way of salvation for for a fraction of people and everyone else is 'doomed from the womb'... I.e., Voddie Bacham's popular "vipers in diapers" .
They don't talk about it much, ( if I believed it I wouldn't either), But, in Reformed theology there is no escaping that most infants, born and unborn, have been decreed by God to eternal damnation... for his glory. And this has nothing to do with anything they will ever do. It's God's, unchangeable, eternal decree.
Any attempt to consider a period of 'grace' for the souls of those who die in miscarriage, abortion, toddlers, the mentally ill, etc... undermines "Unconditional Election", which is a foundational claim of the doctrine. Which they try to support from Eph. 1, that all those "elected" to be saved are "Chosen in Christ" before the foundation of the world. This specifically excludes any period of "grace" commonly used to sooth the minds of family members experiencing grief after losing a baby. It's more likely their little baby is burning in Hell... if their doctrine is correct.
Thank God it isn't.
That's part of the beauty of Christianity, it is simple enough that most children could understand it, yet it is deep enough that you could spend your entire life delving into the depths of scripture and never reach the bottom.
Excellent!!
John McArthur comes to mind whenever i think of reformed baptist.
I attend & consider myself as a Baptist & although I've spent over the past ten years + really trying to understand what it is that I believe & why, including having read through & studied the Bible, I still find it difficult to completely wrap my mind around all the facets of my faith. The one conclusion I have come to though is that Baptist in general are the closest to Biblical Christianity than any other denomination.
Really good video. Mark me down as reformed!
Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays not commanded anywhere in the Bible. They serve other gods and we're breaking the ten commandments when we celebrate them so we gotta repent. If you read Romans 1:22-27, serving other gods is the reason why we're living in Sodom right now.
Also check Ezekiel 20:19-21, the Sabbath is Saturday morning to Sunday morning and it's the sign between God and his people, so if you don't have that sign God is gonna pour out his wrath upon you in tribulation.
And read Isaiah 66:15-17, people who eat unclean like pork and shellfish are going to be consumed by fire in the tribulation. So repent from eating it
And the Messiah's name isn't Jesus, it's Yeshua, he comes in the Father's name Yehovah. He warned us about another coming in his own name in John 5:42-43 because you don't have the love of God in you (the ten commandments - 1 John 5:2-3).
It is my desire and perhaps goal to reclaim the “Baptist” influences of our name and history, equally if superseding the “Reformed” moniker
How are reformed baptists different from actual Baptists
Are Reformed Baptist Reformed?
John Calvin:
"For those who, on pretense of the incapacity of infants, exclude them from baptism, not only unjustly DEFRAUD them of the grace of divine adoption, but WICKEDLY tear away from them that which had been given them by God. For the promise of salvation, which is contained in baptism, is not less applicable to the children of believers than it was to the infants of the Jews under the Old Testament."
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.8)
Charles Hodge:
"The children of believing parents have, therefore, as much right to the ordinances of the church as adults. To deny them this right is to OBLITERATE one of the grand peculiarities of the plan of redemption." (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 588)
B. B. Warfield:
"The Anabaptist SECTS... deny that the children of believers have a right to be admitted to membership in the church. In doing so, they undermine the continuity of the covenant of grace, which is a cornerstone of Reformed theology." (The Plan of Salvation, Chapter 4)
Francis Turretin:
"The visible church is defined as the society of those who profess the true religion and their children. That infants belong to the church and ought to be counted among its members is expressly proved… It cannot be denied without subverting the covenant." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 18.6.3)
The Synod of Dort:
"Since we must make judgments about God's will from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but in virtue of the covenant of grace in which they are included with their parents, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy." (Canons of Dort, First Head, Article 17)
Heinrich Bullinger:
"The sacraments of the Old and New Testaments are the same in substance... Therefore, baptism has come in place of circumcision." (Decades, Fourth Decade, Sermon 9)
The Westminster Confession of Faith:
"Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (Westminster Confession of Faith, 28.4)
Herman Witsius:
"The covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17 is the same covenant of grace revealed in the New Testament... The right of infants to the covenant sign remains." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, Book 4, Chapter 9)
I appreciate your effort, excitement, and teaching with this video, but I can't say reformed Baptist are part of the same theological tradition as me (Reformed) and be intellectually honest at the same time. It is really a different tradition. As you can see, Infant Baptism is an essential issue for our tradition.
you refer to circumcision as grounds for baptising children of believers but how can you include the females when OT theology excluded them ,so why include them now? Just wondering? Also if these children of believers are accounted in the covenant for salvation along with their parents how do you account for the many children who turn away from this covenant as they grow up an honest question?
@margaretha907 I recommend watching Rev Don Baker's TH-cam video called " Biblical case for Infant Baptism". He has just released it. As a minister, he can explain that much better them me.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 Nothing, explicit is said about infant baptisms in the Bible it is just surmised from the fact that households were baptised that there must have been children included, very thin ice on which to build a case! Even in the early centuries of the church take the case of Monica Augustin's mother,a most godly woman you would have thought that she would have had him baptised as an infant ,but no! He was baptised after conversion. Also how do you account for the fact that there are so many adult baptistries in Asia minor when you really only need a jug of water for even adults ,never mind children?
This was informative. I’ve never seen you before. Who and what are you, if you please?
He won’t typically respond in comments. But my understanding is he’s a professor at an Independent Baptist University, currently in North Dakota. If I’m wrong please correct me
@
Thank you very much !
I am a Missionary Baptist and we believe the 1833 New Hampshire confession of faith and the John Newton Brown church covenant.
"God has unchangeably decreed everything that will come to pass, but He is not the author of sin."
4:06
There is only one possible way that this can make any sense whatsoever: if "unchangeably decreed" means that God has decreed that all human actions are completely free. The "decree" is that free will is real and genuine and that everything which humans do, i.e., whatever comes to pass in the human realm, is what God wanted to happen-because God wants free will to exist. In the 12th century, Maimonides explained this concept carefully:
"Know that everything is done according to God’s desire, even though our actions are given over to our power. How does this work? Just as the Creator desires that fire and air rise above while water and earth go down below, and the wheel turns in a circle, and so too all of the other creations in the world follow the way that God desired for them, so also God desired that a person should have free will and everything be given over to him, and that there should be nothing which forces or compels him, but he of his own will and consciousness-which God has given him-may do whatever a person can do."
I always appreciate your deliberately descriptive angle in videos like this. It helps them be informative without pressing down in judgment.
This one was well done. I've been in a southern Baptist church for almost 20 years and am now attending a PCA Presbyterian church, so a lot of this hit home for me. I probably fall into that Reformed Baptist category, even if I love my PCA church.
Non reformed Baptist believe a person must be born again in Christ.
The reformed Baptist believes that assurance of salvation is unknowable, but believing in the teachings of Augustine and Calvin could be a sign or work that proves god might want you.
once pardon always pardon. God doesn't take away his pardons.
o you also forgot the eternal covenant you know the one before creation.
I get what you explained, and your research is fantastic. But I have a fundamental question...If they are all BAPTISTS, then what does the word Baptist even mean, since there are so many differences? Honestly, with this laundry list of differences, they could be easily be called Presbyterian or Church of Christ, or whatever you wish. So why are they Baptists at all?
They are called 'Baptists' due to their distinctive of only baptising professing Christian believers via 'believer's baptism', as opposed to most of the rest of worldwide Christianity, which baptise the families of believers (including children, by 'infant baptism').
☝how are they different? Reformed Catholics are NOT SAVED!
Only the True Catholic Church!! ❤
Have you studied Mid Acts Rightly Dividing Dispensationalism?
Yes, here's my video on them: th-cam.com/video/JKULSOU-0do/w-d-xo.html
Read the Words in Red for three days, then try to read Baptist Confession, without barfing
I was raised lutheran , false gospel because they say water baptizing babys are saved , bible says we get water baptized because we are saved not to be saved. Total opposite and veary critical . Im just glad God saved me and called me out of false teaching .
We are Calvinists and are also confessional 1689 . We are also non Dispensational and are instead covenantal in our interpretation of scripture. We are advocates of the regulative principle of worship.
We?
@ confessional Baptists of the CBA
If you are interested in a psalm exclusive, non-instrument, KJV baptist church, I recommend Sovereign Grace Baptist Church In Topeka, KS
Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council Of 1879 here !!
I just love all the comments on Reformed , Calvinism, church creeds, confessions, covenant theology, man vs. man, beliefs, by-laws, constitutions, Arminianism, and this other "stuff" that is extra-biblical. Thanks for sharing the Gospel.
Reformed theology/Calvinism is satanic, not the gospel.
It’s largely uninspired fluff. Adds nothing.
Is a Baptist Christian?
Yes
The good news is: we are not saved by our membership and having a religion in this planet.... Only by the grace and provision of God thru the death and resurrection of Christ!!!