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 Believe it or not, Reformed Baptists (originally known as "Particular" Baptists) originally made up the majority of Baptists in the United States, and especially in the Southern Baptist Convention (most of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's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.
🎯🎯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.
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.
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.)
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.
@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!
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
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).
I grew up Southern Baptist, and I must admit this episode was the one I probably got the least from. I suppose it was that so much material was covered so quickly.
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. 🧐
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.
Forgive me for not paying full attention. Are reformed Baptists the more Calvinistic? I think that’s what I heard. As a member of the LCMS I find we get along with reformed Baptists pretty well.
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).
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.
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
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.
Daniel 2:31“You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
"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."
Great video, but as a Reformed Baptist, I wouldn't say the church inherited the promises to the land of Israel, but the church always was the true Israel. It was always about the church, and never ethnicity.
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 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').
Quite strange that there are "Reformed" Baptists who do not believe in the spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion, since it is such a central doctrine to the Reformed tradition. In fact, the term "Calvinism" was used by Lutherans to refer to the Reformed precisely because of this doctrine. There is evidence that even Zwingli abandoned memorialism and adopted a similar belief before his death. Baptists who are purely memorialists should not be called Reformed at all.
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 find it fascinating that sola scriptura Baptists believe Bible only doctrine but don’t believe in the sacrament of baptism. The Bible literally says baptism saves in many verses. Mark 16:16 John 3:5 Acts 2: 38-41 Titus 3:5 1 Peter 3:21 Yet Baptists believe baptism is just symbolic or an ordinance.
Baptism doesn’t save anyone. Nothing a man can do as a ceremony would save them , that is far from God saving sinners. You must be born again and that is regeneration by the Holy Spirit causing one to have faith and believe and then they would exercise that gifted faith and profess it by baptism
Roman’s 3:21 doesn’t negate the verses I posted, but merely adds to the whole counsel of God. I also believe faith through grace saves. It’s not one or the other, it’s all.
Having attended both free will baptist churches and reformed baptist churches, the latter are somehow more insuferable. I mean, is it really necessary to bring up Calvinism in Every. Single. Sermon?
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.
@@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).
Well done. Baptists are wonderful people. Most also hold to the separation of church and state and the religious liberty which is very good. It is sad though that they have not divested themselves from Calvin's teaching that God only selects some for salvation and others for damnation. Early reformers getting freed from Catholicism and its salvation by works they ended up in an opposite ditch. Christ died for all and He is both just and merciful. We are not automatons preprogramed either way. Choose you today whom you will serve. Prevenient grace enables individual to choose and still all the glory goes to God and salvation is still by grace through faith (sola gratia and sola fide) as God has given to all the gift of faith. Why then a judgment if God already decided all? Dear young brother, keep up the good work.
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!!!
Count on one hand? I wonder.. I think I know of two in England, one in the Republic of Ireland, and one in Northern Ireland, so if there are some in North America as well, you might find yourself running out of fingers.
"If you ask someone in a Baptist Church that isn't reformed what a Reformed Baptist is the first thing that's going to come up... Calvinism" Haha I doubt this. You're far more likely to get the response "I have no idea". Maybe the pastor would know.
@ready to Harvest: Oops mate - you missed a MAJOR segment of the "Reformed Baptists" those who hold to the 1644/6 BCF and to Progressive Covenantalism. This view is held by eminent scholars such as DA Carson, Douglas Moo, Paul Washer, Stephen Wellum, Peter Gentry and many others. It is also taught and held at the SBTS. It's following is larger than the 1689 Federalists and the movement started long before them. Hope this helps.
Some in the "1689 Reformed" Baptist camp erroneously don't consider us New Covenant Baptists to be reformed, but to be a type of dispensationalist. You also want to include John Reisinger and Tom Wells in that list of scholars.
That view is a bit anachronistic, though. Some of the same men signed both confessions, and there’s no evidence that anything resembling Progressive Covenantalism was affirmed by Baptists in 1646. I do agree that NCT/PC would have been good to mention as an alternative view in the CT vs. Dispensationalism discussion, though.
Exactly, it is not possible to be reformed and to not see baptising your babies as essential, and it’s not possible to be a Baptist and baptise your babies, so the two states are fundamentally opposed.
i went to a catholic mass today for the first time in my life to see what it was like, it was in english but i thonk it was more liberal than what a mass should be
Only God knows who's the elect are man it's almost like you can destroy calvanisim with one verse. 1 John 5:13 KJV [13] These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John Calvin on 1 John 5.13: *As there ought to be a daily progress in faith, so he says that he wrote to those who had already believed, so that they might believe more firmly and with greater certainty, and thus enjoy a fuller confidence as to eternal life. Then the use of doctrine is, not only to initiate the ignorant in the knowledge of Christ, but also to confirm those more and more who have been already taught. It therefore becomes us assiduously to attend to the duty of learning, that our faith may increase through the whole course of our life. For there are still in us many remnants of unbelief, and so weak is our faith that what we believe is not yet really believed except there be a fuller confirmation.* *But we ought to observe the way in which faith is confirmed, even by having the office and power of Christ explained to us. For the Apostle says that he wrote these things, that is, that eternal life is to be sought nowhere else but in Christ, in order that they who were believers already might believe, that is, make progress in believing. It is therefore the duty of a godly teacher, in order to confirm disciples in the faith, to extol as much as possible the grace of Christ, so that being satisfied with that, we may seek nothing else.*
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. John Calvin - Commentary on Acts 2
This is so complicated I have no idea what you just taught... Reformed means you came out of the RCC. ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS REFORMED?? This teaching is so wishy washy - you gave no solid answers.
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.
Yes they. You have hit the key points. Being a reformed Baptist this is great.
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!
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.
Thank you for this and your other video on Reformed Baptists, good stuff!
I second this.
Very interesting. I'm not a Baptist in any form but I do agree with a number of their practices/positions.
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.
THANK YOU! Reformed = CCC Confessional, Covenant Theology, and Calvinist.
@@rsm1161
So much easier to say “Reformed,” isn’t it?
Yes! Haha
I’ve been waiting for this video for about 4 years! In fact, I think I told you when I met you!
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.
Another great video! Will be using it to explain my views to people asking what I mean by reformed Baptist
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.)
“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
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!
As an RB I approve this message! 👍
Led worship in a 1689 LBC church for 5 years. You hit every major distinction perfectly. Well done 👍
Thank you for your study and exposition - as usual
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.
Great exposition! I’m going to repeat my request for a deep dive into the Missionary Church :)
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.
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.
Really like the modern English version of that confession put out by Founders
Ive heard of RINOs now I know about RBINOs!😅
Very well done as always!!!
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.
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.
Great job. As a reformed baptist, this is accurate.
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 really like the graphics in this video
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.
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.
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.
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.
1:13 thanks for letting us fight it out. We're good at that one. 😂
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.
Very informative! God bless your ministry, brother!
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. 😂
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).
I grew up Southern Baptist, and I must admit this episode was the one I probably got the least from. I suppose it was that so much material was covered so quickly.
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. 🧐
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!
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.
Forgive me for not paying full attention. Are reformed Baptists the more Calvinistic? I think that’s what I heard. As a member of the LCMS I find we get along with reformed Baptists pretty well.
Good timing. I just started a book series on the reformation movement.
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).
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.
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.
You nailed it.
I am a Missionary Baptist and we believe the 1833 New Hampshire confession of faith and the John Newton Brown church covenant.
Well explained
Thank you, very informative
You should do a video on Baptists who think they’re Protestants versus Baptists who think they’re not Protestants.
Nice job on this video
Reformed Baptist sound like they are on the right track of proper worship.
Reformed Baptist sounds pretty cool imo.
Exhaustive, no. Exhausting, absolutely
Sick burn at the end. If you call yourself something but don’t hold to the beliefs, you’re probably not that thing
Excellent!!
☝how are they different? Reformed Catholics are NOT SAVED!
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 !
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.
Daniel 2:31“You saw, O king, and behold, a great image. This image, mighty and of exceeding brightness, stood before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32The head of this image was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34As you looked, a stone was cut out by no human hand, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
How? Well, I WAS Baptist, but I got better.
"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."
If you are interested in a psalm exclusive, non-instrument, KJV baptist church, I recommend Sovereign Grace Baptist Church In Topeka, KS
It is my desire and perhaps goal to reclaim the “Baptist” influences of our name and history, equally if superseding the “Reformed” moniker
Great video, but as a Reformed Baptist, I wouldn't say the church inherited the promises to the land of Israel, but the church always was the true Israel. It was always about the church, and never ethnicity.
Viewing 1000 as a precise number means making a massive presumption with numbers. 1000 means something else, a perfect number.
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.
How about the 7th Day Baptist. The only Baptist church that keeps the true Sabbath day.
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').
Quite strange that there are "Reformed" Baptists who do not believe in the spiritual presence of Christ in Holy Communion, since it is such a central doctrine to the Reformed tradition. In fact, the term "Calvinism" was used by Lutherans to refer to the Reformed precisely because of this doctrine. There is evidence that even Zwingli abandoned memorialism and adopted a similar belief before his death. Baptists who are purely memorialists should not be called Reformed at all.
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
Difference of Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian (PCA)
Generally the biggest difference there is going to be paedobaptism vs credobaptism.
I find it fascinating that sola scriptura Baptists believe Bible only doctrine but don’t believe in the sacrament of baptism. The Bible literally says baptism saves in many verses.
Mark 16:16
John 3:5
Acts 2: 38-41
Titus 3:5
1 Peter 3:21
Yet Baptists believe baptism is just symbolic or an ordinance.
Please consider a large text and explain it carefully. Romans 3:21-25 for example.
Baptism doesn’t save anyone. Nothing a man can do as a ceremony would save them , that is far from God saving sinners. You must be born again and that is regeneration by the Holy Spirit causing one to have faith and believe and then they would exercise that gifted faith and profess it by baptism
Roman’s 3:21 doesn’t negate the verses I posted, but merely adds to the whole counsel of God. I also believe faith through grace saves. It’s not one or the other, it’s all.
Having attended both free will baptist churches and reformed baptist churches, the latter are somehow more insuferable. I mean, is it really necessary to bring up Calvinism in Every. Single. Sermon?
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.
Wow! So god has already decided who will be saved. You can believe in all the tenants but there is no guarantee you’re one of the chosen?
Have you studied Mid Acts Rightly Dividing Dispensationalism?
Yes, here's my video on them: ua-cam.com/video/JKULSOU-0do/v-deo.html
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).
Well done. Baptists are wonderful people. Most also hold to the separation of church and state and the religious liberty which is very good. It is sad though that they have not divested themselves from Calvin's teaching that God only selects some for salvation and others for damnation. Early reformers getting freed from Catholicism and its salvation by works they ended up in an opposite ditch. Christ died for all and He is both just and merciful. We are not automatons preprogramed either way. Choose you today whom you will serve. Prevenient grace enables individual to choose and still all the glory goes to God and salvation is still by grace through faith (sola gratia and sola fide) as God has given to all the gift of faith. Why then a judgment if God already decided all? Dear young brother, keep up the good work.
Have repeated alter calls, talk about how smart you are and how everyone else is wrong.
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!!!
Unreal. Whatever just loving Christ?
Difference for me - I hate the theology of Reformed Baptists, and I agree with most of the theology of other Baptists.
You hate God's Word.
Count on one hand? I wonder.. I think I know of two in England, one in the Republic of Ireland, and one in Northern Ireland, so if there are some in North America as well, you might find yourself running out of fingers.
www.earthdate.org/files/inline-images/ancient%20civilizations%20counted%20by%20twelves%20using%20the%20segments%20of%20their%20fingers.jpg
@@ReadyToHarvest
You win the joke award for today.
"If you ask someone in a Baptist Church that isn't reformed what a Reformed Baptist is the first thing that's going to come up... Calvinism"
Haha I doubt this. You're far more likely to get the response "I have no idea". Maybe the pastor would know.
So they're just Credo-Baptist Presbyterians?
With a differing view on the new covenant and the administrations thereof. You nailed it
Strictly topical sermons? Like literally?
🌹🔥🌟🔥🌹
Not the RBINOs.
@ready to Harvest: Oops mate - you missed a MAJOR segment of the "Reformed Baptists" those who hold to the 1644/6 BCF and to Progressive Covenantalism. This view is held by eminent scholars such as DA Carson, Douglas Moo, Paul Washer, Stephen Wellum, Peter Gentry and many others. It is also taught and held at the SBTS. It's following is larger than the 1689 Federalists and the movement started long before them.
Hope this helps.
Some in the "1689 Reformed" Baptist camp erroneously don't consider us New Covenant Baptists to be reformed, but to be a type of dispensationalist. You also want to include John Reisinger and Tom Wells in that list of scholars.
That view is a bit anachronistic, though. Some of the same men signed both confessions, and there’s no evidence that anything resembling Progressive Covenantalism was affirmed by Baptists in 1646.
I do agree that NCT/PC would have been good to mention as an alternative view in the CT vs. Dispensationalism discussion, though.
If you're Reformed your not Baptist as my old pastor would have said but maybe he said Calvinist. Sorry Vodie Bacuham. 🤔🥺😊
Exactly, it is not possible to be reformed and to not see baptising your babies as essential, and it’s not possible to be a Baptist and baptise your babies, so the two states are fundamentally opposed.
i went to a catholic mass today for the first time in my life to see what it was like, it was in english but i thonk it was more liberal than what a mass should be
YMMV. Try a SSPX Catholic Church.
You would be as well going to a black mass.
Both as evil.
Calling God down from heaven and eating him. Tsk
Also look around for FSSP parishes for a similarly-consistent conservative environment.
Only God knows who's the elect are man it's almost like you can destroy calvanisim with one verse.
1 John 5:13 KJV
[13] These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
John Calvin on 1 John 5.13:
*As there ought to be a daily progress in faith, so he says that he wrote to those who had already believed, so that they might believe more firmly and with greater certainty, and thus enjoy a fuller confidence as to eternal life. Then the use of doctrine is, not only to initiate the ignorant in the knowledge of Christ, but also to confirm those more and more who have been already taught. It therefore becomes us assiduously to attend to the duty of learning, that our faith may increase through the whole course of our life. For there are still in us many remnants of unbelief, and so weak is our faith that what we believe is not yet really believed except there be a fuller confirmation.*
*But we ought to observe the way in which faith is confirmed, even by having the office and power of Christ explained to us. For the Apostle says that he wrote these things, that is, that eternal life is to be sought nowhere else but in Christ, in order that they who were believers already might believe, that is, make progress in believing. It is therefore the duty of a godly teacher, in order to confirm disciples in the faith, to extol as much as possible the grace of Christ, so that being satisfied with that, we may seek nothing else.*
No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief.
John Calvin - Commentary on Acts 2
A bit surprised that you neglected to mention the Seventh day Baptist Church when discussing the differences between Reformed Baptists and others.
Why is that a surprise
When he was discussing the differences on Sabbath. He was just talking about Sunday keeping Baptists but not Sabbath keepers.
I think that is because they are such a small group and it seems to me that they are practically unknown to most people.
This is so complicated I have no idea what you just taught... Reformed means you came out of the RCC. ARE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS REFORMED?? This teaching is so wishy washy - you gave no solid answers.