Are Reformed Baptists Really "Reformed"?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 июн 2021
- Are Reformed Baptists really "Reformed?" We will tackle that question as well as asking what a pastor should do who can't find a job in a local church.
Thanks to David Dalfino and Cherry Hills Bibles: cherryhillbibles.com/
CT Lectures: • Critical Theory Lectures
Follow on Twitter: / matt_everhard
Follow on Telegram: t.me/mattheweverhard
As a student at PRTS, I have a great relationship with the Reformed Baptist brothers here. While we have our disagreements, the way in which these men hold fast to their Confessional integrity is commendable, and strong Confessionalism is lacking in so many churches, whether Baptist or Presby or Dutch etc. Love my Reformed Baptist brothers.
As a reformed bapt. We love our Prebyterian n other reformed bros. too.
@@gordonreed2736 yes u love them more than u love non "reformed" baptists (as if there is such a thing as reformed baptists) you laugh at general baptists and try to be "cool" with ur reformed "bros"...just go on and jump the fence, u left the baptist fold long ago
@@caman171 huh
@@gordonreed2736 was there something i said that u dont comprehend? i think its pretty straight forward
@@gordonreed2736 was there something u didnt understand???
Great video brother! I left the Baptists and joined the PCA a few years ago mostly because of your videos. God bless you.
Isn’t the baptist church restorationist when you think about it?
17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
-Matthew 16:17-19
The Church didn’t disappear.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
- Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: PCA, OPC, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
Rev. Everhard is a gift. What a commendable talk. Spirit led, no doubt. God bless all reading this.
I’m a reformed Baptist, and enjoyed this informative video. We’ll done.
Me Too !!!
As a Reformed Baptist, I'm curious as to what he's gonna say lol
Same
Me too
Lol I’m here for the same reason 😆
@J Bar KJV only Baptists are generally Independent Baptist rather than Reformed. We have a Reformed Baptist preacher member in our Presbyterian church, which is ultra-reformed, having left the PCA because of “wokeness” issues in PCA.
Me too
I’m not in a 1689 church, but my theology is basically reformed baptist, other than my very moderate continuationist position. I have discovered this channel fairly recently, and I am loving it!
We share the same life lol I’m in the same theological position and church situation. We’re reformed and Baptist in theology but don’t subscribe to the 1689. And moderate continuationists😂
@@Elcarbonero1003 My brother at last, haha. For clarity, I by no means reject the 1689. I read through it recently for the first time (I am a young believer), and can’t recall seeing anything explicit there that I would reject. I’m just not in a 1689 church at this moment, and I would differ from most who hold to the 1689 on their stance regarding spiritual gifts, though I’m very moderate in my position. Anyway, may God continue to bless and grow you in your faith and knowledge of Jesus :)
Not sure if you know Gavin Ortlund and his channel Truth Unites, but he is a very thoughtful and knowledgeable believer, and so far I can’t find any point of theology where I differ from him. Yet I also listen to many other sound teachers with whom I have disagreements :)
@@andrekershaw6244 at last the Lord has crossed our paths! Lol yeah I’m in the same boat with you. Young-ish believer(2.5 years or so yet brought up in the faith my whole life), and same church situation too. I pray the same for you, brother! May God richly bless you and keep you.
I haven’t heard of him but I’ll check him out! Thank you.
Exactly the same here.
Lol can’t wait for this
Edit: 2nd LBC guy here. I appreciate your charity.
Very fair and well thought out. Well done Pastor!
I’m 5 seconds in, I’m gonna go ahead and say yes. I’ll keep watching now 😊
A better title for this video would be, Are RBs Presbyterians? The answer: No. But whether they are confessionally reformed is another question.
I'm reformed baptist, my church ✔'s every box except for covenant theology.
@@jeremybrowning6895 really? so u put a check on infant baptism, covenant theology, hierarchical church govt, elder ruled congregations, that God has abandoned israel and the church has replaced her, and that all heretics (you know those baptists and anabaptists that refuse to baptise infants, should be drowned in river or expelled? if ur church "checks" all the boxes then please STOP calling urself baptist
@@caman171 you didn't read my post did you? We check all the boxes EXCEPT for covenant theology, witch includes infant baptism. (FYI that means I do not agree with covenant theology) My church is not anabaptist, we are a congregation voting elder lead REFORMED BAPTIST church, we hold to the truths of John Calvin, my church practices expository preaching (witch means that we go through scripture verse by verse), we practice church discipline, we are confessional, creedal, and we have elders (preachers) that shears the pulpit, we do not believe or hold to the teachings of covenant theology as I said in my last post (we check every box except covenant theology). BTW we check all the boxes Pastore Mat spoke about in this video (excluding Covenant theology just to be clear) I don't pretend to agree with everything Presbyterians say, we just happen to be in agreement in this video (again except for covenant theology) but I do believe Presbyterians are fellow brothers in Christ.
@@jeremybrowning6895 well again i have to say ur response makes no sense. ok i get it---u dont accept covenant theology but u say u "check" all the other boxes. Reformed theology also teaches a hierarchical church govt, which this video does talk about. do u "check" that box? do u believe churches should be "ruled" by bishops, synods, presbyteries etc? if not, then that is a box u left "unchecked". how about replacement theology? did u "check" that box"? how about some infants dying and being cast into hell "for the glory of God" did u "check" that box? how about temporal time salvation" did u "check" that box? YOU said u checked ALL the boxes EXCEPT for covenant theology, so i am just taking u at ur word. if you do indeed "check" all the boxes i mentioned, you are no type of true baptist...reformed maybe but not baptist. if ur pastor appoints elders without the congregation voting on them, then you arent truly congregational in polity as true baptists are. forgive me if i seem harsh. but the church i belonged to for 20 yrs now no longer exists because a new pastor lied about what he believed. he was 'reformed baptist". after a while he dissolved the deacons, appointed elders, started accepting those in the church who were baptized as infants and drove a church of 3000 members into the grave. after the congregation dwindled to less than 100 members, they voted to seel the church property, and "blessed" the pastor with a "gift? of over a million dollars for him to retire. so yes, all my encounters with "reformed baptists? have not been positive ones/
@@caman171 again none of that except church gov was mentioned in this video, our church is a congregational voting church, we vote for the elders and deacons (the deacons handle the church business, and the elders lead, preach, and teach. Before we vote for elders or deacons they go through biblical testing to see if they qualify (that's the job of the elders). As far as accepting someone who was baptized as baby and not as a believer, they are to be baptized before joining our church, we hold to believers baptism only. But again I do believe Presbyterians are fellow brothers in Christ, we may disagree about some things but we're in more agreement than not.
Matthew, Southern Baptists and Reformed Baptists are two different groups with two very different histories. Few Southern Baptists identify as Calvinists, but all Reformed Baptists are Calvinists, being greatly influenced by Reformed Presbyterianism. To be Baptist is to be congregational in polity.
I’m southern Baptist, and whole heartedly affirm the doctrines of grace. 💁🏻♂️ So there’s 1
@@T-Wyler Likewise, there are a lot that are members of the SBC due to the cooperative program for missions. That is me, and I am a pastor. The people within the church know where I stand, and there is zero disagreements, but lots of good healthy discussion.
I’m an SBC pastor and reformed. Check out Founder’s Ministry.
@@T-Wyler i am also southern baptist, NON CALVINIST. however, you CAN be baptist and be calvinist, but u CANNOT be baptist and be reformed. those 2 terms are NOT synonymous. the reformed have a very different view of what predestination as opposed to just a 5 point calvinist. ALSO you can be reformed and NOT be calvinist (the cumberland presbyterians are reformed but reject predestination outright) after all arminius was "reformed". those who call themselves "reformed baptists" are neither reformed nor baptist. the phoenix reformed baptist church affirms the nicene creed which affirms baptismal regeneration, and the chalcedonian creed which calls mary the mother of God. NO true baptist (of any stripe) would EVER affirm those creeds
I studied the History of the Baptist Peoples in a Baptist college and many Baptists in the class were surprised to learn that early Baptists were overwhelmingly Reformed and Calvinistic in their theology. The fact that most modern day Baptists identify as Synergists is not a reflection of our history. For example, Martin Luther was solidly Reformed, but upon his death, Philip Melanchthon permanently changed that denomination to the Arminian view. The denomination still bears his name, but rejects Luther's Reformed theology. The way things are now defies the way things used to be.
Would you consider doing a “Why I Am Not Anglican” video at some point? Not the AngloCatholic sort, but but classical expression that the BCP 1662 you featured some time ago imparts. Frankly it’s been a battle for me since becoming Reformed and I’d love to hear your take on the differences, pros/cons, etc. between the historic/confessional Presbyterian and Anglican traditions.
Thanx, Pastor 🌹🌹🌹
I say this as a joke:D as a Reformed Baptist I care that I'm right with the bible more than being reformed:D Love my Presbyterian Brothers though! Plus this was done in good charity, thank you.
I comment as to not offend, but explore deeply. Why do you refer to yourself as a Reformed Baptist? Is it because you believe it to be the correct interpretation of the bible or some other reason? All churches and denominations claim their interpretations to be biblical. Hence, to say biblical is not sufficient enough because it is too general and that’s why we have these confessions and denominations.
@@thomasc9036 The reason reformed baptist use this name is to show we do descend Theologically from the Reformed tradition we use the term baptist or rather were given that name by those who did not like us, to describe who and how we baptize. Also in this is the idea of a more elder lead congregationalism. So if you look at the 1689 London Baptist confession compared to the Westminster Confession (Reformed/Presbyterian) these are the only two areas we disagree on. Which are minor things.
@@BibleFanatics Perhaps I didn't make it clear. Your comment about "right with the bible" in reality among self-proclaimed Christians is meaningless. Even Mormons claim to be biblical Christians. WCF and LBC offer detailed inward reflection/examination of what you truly believe about the Christianity.
Currently, many people separate "reformed" vs "Reformed". Lower case "reformed " is used by Baptists while Reformed is used by Presbyterians or Dutch Reformed. These distinctions, while some may dismiss them as being petty and unnecessary, do offer many benefits to local churches. For example, I am a Presbyterian, but used to be a reformed Baptist. I challenged my pastor (he did not take well) who taught that “we shouldn’t know if infants of believers who die are saved”. I questioned “if we shouldn’t know, then why do we baptize our children”?.... Silence.
If you study early church heresies like Arianism and Pelagianism, they seemed to be minor issues at first, but as they dug further and further, flaws in these heresies are actually much bigger corruptions to the very cornerstones of the Christianity.
@@thomasc9036 you are right sorry I misunderstood. I am not a big fan of giving long responses on RUclips. The best I could point you to right now would be reformed bibliology podcast. They have great material on why Reformed Baptist are reformed. Another is James Whites recent sermons on baptism and what it means. I totally get where you are coming from though. I had a lot of those same questions as well and considered Presbyterianism. Thank you for asking me this question!
@@BibleFanatics :were given that name (baptist) by those who do not like us"....do u realize what u are saying? the statement is true, BUT the ones who did not like "us" are the reformed churches...so now u wanna take their name? u cannot be baptist AND reformed. there are way mire than 2 area where the 2 disagree. do a little more studying
You mentioned Voltron, but I was really hoping you'd say, "that's partialism Patrick!"
Underrated comment :D
Something you might not know but is interesting: General Baptist’s are not reformed as you mentioned, but they do have a Presbyterian form of government. Churches are part of a Presbytery where deacons and pastors are ordained. We recently saw in our area where a pastor preached a sermon that was way out of line and the Presbytery took action quickly and removed him. I was raised General Baptist but now am Southern Baptist and this is one of the main differences in those churches. The other obviously being SBC being more Calvinistic. Great channel, I really enjoy it!
Reformed Baptist here (1689). Your friend really should consider planting a church. We are only about 3 years reformed and have been frustrated by the lack of sound reformed churches in the area. We live in Coastal South Texas and we have to drive 4 towns away to meet with the church. We fellowship with a PCA church but would love to see a faithful Gospel witness in our area. What good does it do for all of these reformed seminary grads to keep all of this sound teaching to themselves and historically reformed areas rather than see God do something in a doctrinally sound wasteland?
I was at a four square church when I heard Piper preach through Romans 9, which made me a Calvinist on the spot. I crystalized in my understanding of Covenant Theology, slowly came to adopt a confessional position, and grew to appreciate the ecumenical creeds. I'll also note that the 2nd London Baptist Confession presents a robust connectionism in 26.14-15, even if it does not create formal authority outside of local congregations. That brings me to my next point, and actually full circle: I thought I was a "Reformed Baptist" the second I believed in the 5 points of Calvinism. The depth of my appreciation of what "Reformed" means has grown with each progressive step. A lot of the problem is that some people see a part of the Reformed Faith and adopt the label before appreciating the rest of the things that you mention. For people who call themselves "Reformed" and don't appreciate the creeds, don't use a historically reformed confession (or what they say about association!) and don't believe in covenant theology I would want to say, "respectfully, you're using that word, but I don't think you know everything that it should mean..."
You had me at Voltron and Transformers. :)
The heresy of Voltronism!
Regarding the last question, is it really your experience that churches are smaller post-COVID? That's interesting because I observe just the opposite. The biblical churches near me are booming post-pandemic, some nearly having doubled in size. An additional factor that may be relevant is wokeism in the church. I've noticed that the big churches that have started embracing wokeism in the past year are hemorrhaging members and dwindling just as quickly as the faithful churches are growing.
Dear Sir, can please provide me J.Oliver Buswell book on systematic theology
Another thought for those pastors who can not find a position. It may be that there are other ministries in which your particular talents may be used for the Kingdom. There is a great need for solid teachers in the form of writers, seminary professors, and even administrators. There is a serious crisis of faithful scholarship that is destroying entire branches of the church. Perhaps your abilities can be of value there.
The other advice I would give to someone looking for pastorate, is to be willing to go anywhere. Too often we limit ourselves because we are not willing to anywhere God calls us to go. For my first lead pastorate I moved from California to Maine, but for that to happen I had to open to the possibility. There are a lot of churches in the New England area that are looking for pastors.
Papist here. Lolololol. Love you brother.
I am a reformed or particular baptist. It seems the only test that I failed was “connectionalism”. But, I completely deny congregationalism in the way that it is used in most baptist churches, and would be open to a reformed baptist version of a presbytery or Synod.
I was surprised to hear that you said that the sacraments (as far as being purely symbolic) was something that reformed baptist disagree with Presbyterians on. I know that general baptist hold to a purely symbolic view of the ordinances, but I didn’t know reformed baptist did. I hold to them as a means of grace, the spiritual presence of Christ in the supper, and not just symbolically. The only thing that I actually disagree with Presbyterians on is paedobaptism.
Edited: I went back and looked at our confession of faith, and the 1689 speaks about the spiritual presence of Christ. So if they are confessional then their view of the sacraments should be pretty close to what Presbyterians believe.
Paragraph 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.11
11 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:23-26
Although, no such statement is made in the same way about baptism as a means of grace. But, the confession leaves room for that view.
I live in a rural area so my options for a Reformed church are limited. I would say that I am a Reformed Christian who attends a Baptist church which mostly teaches Reformed doctrines. I have a difficult time comprehending how someone could believe in biblical Covenant but not subscribe to Paedobaptism though. Besides that, I am beyond pleased that I attend a church that adheres to Amillennialism as I believe confidently that this is what Jesus had in mind when He described the end of things.
People who are paedobaptist by conviction and not just by tradition almost always come to that conclusion from their understanding of covenant theology.
@@Christian-vq8rd I was close! I went on a deep study of covenant theology and that led me on a 3 month study of baptism. But I ended up still remaining a credobaptist. But I was very close to switching.
I see where people get it from though, and honestly it’s very appealing to me.. but my conscience is bound by scripture to credo even though I love paedobaptism haha.
Friendly reply - because the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant. The Old is a Covenant with a mixed people, both saved and unsaved, regenerate and unregenerate. Everyone in the New Covenant is saved. Everyone in the New Covenant is regenerate. Jeremiah 31:32-34, Hebrews 8:7-13. "...a new covenant...not according to the Covenant I made with their fathers...None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," for ALL shall know Me..."
I would say I was first a (credo)Baptist because it's what I saw in the Bible, but that it is now reinforced by and conforms to my understanding of the Covenant Theology.
I've been a pastor, ordained decades ago, in a denomination that is not elder ruled (congregational), and I've lived with that tension because we've just had elders lead well and the congregation pretty much - as in always - has maintained consensus over this. We don't 'vote' per se, we talk things through but there has not been anything of note that has divided us. However, I have decided to return my ordination soon because of what the national and many regional leaders have embrace of late; to wit, social justice in the world's sense, feminism with women now taking on titles of 'pastor,' and the whole sense of the Scriptures not being sufficient for, well, just about everything. Lip service to it, but the practice is clearly deficient and getting worse. I am very sad, and have thought to 'transfer' my ordination elsewhere if that were possible. So far, the closest I find to what I see as biblical is the Reformed Baptist. What other ones might also fit along those lines? I don't yet know. My search is on. Thanks for the information in this video.
I am a Reformed Baptist, also known as Particular Baptist. My church is a 1689 church!
Thank you brother, for your insight. I am a 1689 federalist that attends a PCA church, and I agree we are brothers in Christ. So praise God for that. I appreciate your 5 "C"s to what makes us reformed, but if I may be kind, and with all respect , add 2 other categories which I believe those who are truly reformed would hold to as well. A biblcal understanding of Law and Gospel distinction and holding to the ordinary means of grace. But all and all, thank you for your vid.
Law and gospel distinction is the biggest issue Baptists need to learn. Too often conflated with false teachings such as Lordship Salvation.
The Baptist church which I have been a member of for many years, is Reformed in its doctrine and in its preaching, salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone, stand on the once and for all atonement for sin upon the cross, John ch3 vs 16.
We follow New Testament teaching on the sacrament of baptism, where it teaches time and time again believe and be baptised, giving many examples of people who came to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as their on and personal saviour, and made a public declaration of it by being baptised.
The reformed Baptist Church, rejects any attempt to introduce the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, we are all born in sin. Faith is is individual, it cannot be inherited or passed down.
We can dress it up into fancy words, but it’s straight clear and direct bible based doctrine.
,
Hoping the ordained minister has found a church. Something he may wish to consider is a leap from the Reformed section of the NAPARC to the Presby area. I’m in the URCNA. It my pastor transferred in after 30 years in the OPC. He needed to be in there’s due to family needs and there was no OPC church even close. We have benefitted as he dove into the 3 Forms of Unity after a deep knowledge of the Westminster, often providing us with references from both.
Thanks Matthew, enjoyable presentation: I laughed at your statement Reformed? charitably "yes" but technically "no"...LOL.
Was this accurate? "yes" and "no" viz.:
1. A good attempt, but you did conflate General and Particular Baptists on a number of points. Similarly, Presbyterianism is no longer "one thing" i.e. an example from the USA alone - PC(USA), OPC, BPC, RPC, RPCNA, EPC, CPC etc. so to compare "Reformed Baptists" to Presbyterians is a little tongue in cheek at best :-) . There are more Presbyterian Synods in America than Reformed Baptist Associations :-) and just about all Reformed Baptist Churches belong to a RB association.
2. While Reformed Baptists don't have a synod, we do have associations where membership is contingent on orthodoxy. These associations are able to mediate on disagreements, although these "mediations" are by submission. Additionally, by extension there should be a global Presbyterian Synod for the proposed argument to hold as a "reformed" criteria, so the argument is perhaps not quite complete.
3. We RB actually consider that the Presbyterian reformation did not go far enough, so we are the ones that actually question whether you are reformed...what an irony. :-)
4. The First Baptist Confession of Faith preceded the WCF by 3 years methinks and was thoroughly reformed if not a bit incomplete. The WCF is indeed a wonderful document and did form the basis for the 2LBCF of 1689.
5. We consider that we as Reformed Baptists are closer to our Reformed Presbyterian brothers than to General Baptists, even though you may still need to reform your view on the eternal covenant, predestination and the associated covenant signs :-) :-D
the SBC was NEVER reformed. while many were calvinistic, many others were not. calvinistic soteriology does NOT = Reformed. theres a reason Baptists dont celebrate Reformation day. we were hiding form the "reformers" during the reformation. william whitsitt was removed from Southern Seminary because he called Baptists "protestant"..Southern Seminary has always been calvinistic soteriologically, but obviously they didnt think of themselves as "reformed" or "protestant" in the 1800's. they taught landmarkism. the SBC has NEVER embraced covenant theology, infant baptism, elder rule, synods, sacramentalism or hierarchical church govt.. nor did they ever persecute others for their religious views. so NO they have NEVER been "reformed"...read spurgeon
@@caman171 thanks Caman, good observation. I should’ve been more specific in my SBC statement…they were “Reformed” as per the Reformed Baptistic definition of “Reformed”, the internal contentions besides. I do reiterate that we do believe that the “reformation” was incomplete by the Calvinistic and Lutheran streams and certainly believe that the Anabaptist streams headed in the wrong direction soteriologically, eschatologically and ecclesiologically.
@@larrycdalton and us Presbys forgive ya'll those minor foibles.
As a Presbyterian (PCA), I am honored to have been given an 1861 Westminster Confession, ratified at the 1861 Augusta, GA General Assembly, with revised proof texts printed 1910, and Reprinted in 1963. It was falling apart when I got it. I had it rebound in a very nice navy blue leather hardback with gold lettering.
1689 brother was not the first Baptist confession look into it the first one predates your own and I agree if a church isn’t led by a board of elders its not reformed and with liberals creeping into the PCA I’d be curious to see how much you like your presbyteries in the future. The Chuch should be United and share letters and work together but you cannot get presbyteries out of Scripture i love you and i agree with you on 99.775% of things but i have to disagree on that part and as a Reformed Baptist other than that though we would agree on most everything i would say if your an inch away from Methodists than I’m no more than a quarter inch :) right now we should be standing hand in hand fighting CRT and the LGBT movement while we can freely
I agree. Presbyteries sound good on paper, but if the wrong people start getting those positions then the Baptist style of government shows itself to be the better of the two
A Presbytery doesn't guarantee anything either. I personally know of a local Presbyterian church that had members spiritually abused, funds taken, false witness borne against members, etc all by the assigned leadership. And even though the congregation appealed to the regional Presbytery they were ignored for nearly 2 years until most of the congregation left. It waz a sad situation and though the pastor was eventually replaced by the Presbytery the interim pastor assigned by the Presbytery was arrested on child sex charges. No system is without risk or error. A plurality of Elders is the best way to go with the local congregation choosing said elders and this seems to be the biblical model
Does anyone know a strong reformed church in San Diego?
5 C's... Well Done :D
My video on the qualities required to be Reformed lists (3) C's.
Confessional
Calvinistic
Covenantal
To be a Reformed Baptist you need only add one more "C" Credobaptism. That gives a grand total of 4 C's. 1689 Federalists (subscribing to the 2LBCF) certainly have a robust, consistent Covenant Theology. Anyone can check out Brandon Adams' videos or articles for a bunch more detail on Baptist Covenant Theology, or check out the Coxe-Owen volume on Covenant Theology, or Pascal Denault's 'The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology'.
As a PCA Presbyterian, I am not sure if Presbyterianism should be included. Looking at PCUSA, EPC, and to some degree PCA, that distinction didn't help keep the integrity of the Presbyterian church.
Singing Bethel "worship" songs is not Reformed! Yet a PCA church does that.
There is an irony that over about 40 years of existence the PCA has drifted to the same errors that caused them to separate from PCUSA. Now some of the PCA founders are again founding a new Presbyterian denomination to return to Biblical faith and practice.
@@sueregan2782 it is why we didnt merge with them, OPC.
Hey Bro. Everhard, I have a question about pedeobaptism. I’m a SBC and am learning more and more about the Reformed doctrines. (I’m reading the 1689 right now for the first time to let you know where I’m at.).
If a baby is baptized and later in life they come to faith in Christ. Do you do “Believers Baptism” and make a distinction between the two types of baptism?
Is it “covenantal baptism” for believing parents to baptize the babies and then when they come to faith they are baptized in “believers baptism”?
Thanks for the video brother!
Hey brother, I am not Presbyterian.. so I don’t hold to paedobaptism, but I can answer those questions!
To answer your first question, no. The baby is baptized into the covenant community because they are a child of a covenant believer (whether that be the mother is a believer or the Father is a believer or both). They do household baptisms. So the infants are recognized as covenant members because they are the children of believers. They are once to be baptized, so that means that the baptism that they receive as an infant is the only baptism that is necessary for them to receive. The mode of this baptism can be sprinkling, pouring, or immersing depending on what camp. But, most do pouring I believe.
To answer your second question: covenantal baptism is for believers to baptize their babies yes. But believers baptism (I’m not sure if Presbyterians actually use that language or not), is only applied to those who come to faith outside of a Christian household (so they haven’t been baptized as an infant). When it comes to baptisms of adults professing faith in Christ, I am not sure what mode they use, but I do know that mode isn’t really an important factor for presbyterian.. so pouring, sprinkling, or immersion would be sufficient in this case.
Although, the 1689 is specifically a baptistic reformed confession (as you probably know). So it won’t mention infant baptism. But the Westminster would be the Presbyterian equivalent.
Edit: just a side note, but you don’t have to accept infant baptism in order to be reformed. Study the scriptures, be a Berean, and hold to what scripture teaches. I personally love the idea of infant baptism, and would like to hold that position.. but I am bound by my conscience, informed by the scriptures, to hold to credobaptism.
Everybody should get out of the SBC. When a denomination allows Flaming heretics to say I am God almighty in a sermon Like Steven Furtick did it is going apostate.
@@innovationhq8230 if he is looking into Reformed theology then he is well on his way out.
@@innovationhq8230 I would be careful with the definition. I have seen a Presbyterian Pastor in recent years promote the Revoice convention not condemning homosexuality, but openly accepting it. However, I would not consider all Presbyterians apostate or going apostate.
@@innovationhq8230 hi, I understand the sentiment, but each church in the SBC is autonomous, plus we can’t just break fellowship with the local assembly we are a part of whenever something in the larger assembly goes sideways. That violates being submissive to my local assembly, hurts the family , hurts the church, and is full of selfish pride. I can’t violate my commitment and the command from scripture for some distant heresies that some may hold to. If they were the case nobody should ever attend church because tares are with the wheat everywhere.
I urge you to pray for those in the SBC to stay faithful to the Lord and continue to preach the gospel. The last thing we need is for godly men and women to leave. We need them to stay, pray, preach, and fight ( when necessary)
Now, if the local assembly slips into rank heresies, the conversation changes.
A Righteous Democratic Believer is a Oxymoron, Jeremiah 7 tells us why. Proverbs 6 tells us God hates shedding of inocessent blood.
Proverbs 17:15 You who justify the wicked and condemned the just are both an abomination to the Lord. Yet many people believe Jeremiah is just a history book, blasphemous.
Democratic Pastors are the Devil mouth piece.
The first point, about Christ and the Trinity, it seems to be a criteria of being a Christian.
What did I miss?
Do you have a video about baptism and it's theological founding? Thanks for the video! By the way, I believe in a small way you periodically confused /combined Reformed Baptists with Baptists in general (Southern, Independent, Missionary, etc).
Very fair to us R.B.
We LBC reformed Baptists are just a little more reformed than you guys ;) haha thanks for the video
I am a Baptist, getting good marks so far 😂
What is a true Christian? And if all are brothers, why should there be any denominational doctrines beyond recognizing Jesus as savior?
No trinity ??
Like most of my Presbyterian brothers, you forget about the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. It is almost identical to the 1689 version but PRECEDED the Westminster Confession.
As a Particular Baptist belonging to an OPC church, I was wondering if I could be Reformed. My pastor and elders say I am.
FYI most Baptist churches, including many SBC, are Armenian in at least one point - general election. At least in my 60+ years experience. Only we Reformed Baptists truly understood TULIP.
Thanks for the information, brother.
Charlie D.
I would love to see a debate between you and Gavin ortlund on paedobaptism!
Tons of churches (Baptist ones) in SC are looking for Pastors.
There is nothing that a good Baptist needs to reform. I'll take a straight Baptist denomination any day
there's lots of things that need reform. e.g. dispensationalism, eschatology, etc.
As a "Reformed Baptist" - I understand why some of our Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Conservative Lutheran brethren... would question just how "Reformed" we are - Even though many Baptist may hold to the confessions, creeds, catechisms, the 5 Points of the Synod of Dort, and the 5 Solas etc,, there are still challenges when it comes to ecclesiology - one doesn't find uniformity among the "Reformed Baptist" churches - not all hold to a plurality of elders, and even in ones that have a plurality of elders, they may still hold to independence from other churches, many "Reformed Baptist" still debate over being a part of a fellowship or association - and even in fellowships and associations they struggle with confessional subscription, church accountability and this can all undermine the Reformed concept of there being One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. I would describe how Reformed we are, is that "in spirit" since we recognize the 5 Solas, we are reformed in the sense that we hold to these identifying tenants summing up the spirit of the Reformation, but in terms of worship and ecclesiology there is too much inconsistency among "Reformed Baptist" to view us as being "practically" reformed.
As a Bapist my question would be are Reformed Bapist really Bapist? I believe many fall much closer to Presbyterian with the exception of baptism that true Bapist belief
Most SBC churches are highly resistant to Calvinistic views. Research Steve Lawson’s experience with pastoring Dauphin Way Baptist in Mobile, AL. Congregants were militant when he taught reformed theology.
Only big difference is probably sprinkling vs immersion and heavier weight on evangelism. I’m reformed Baptist, we reference puritans and the old reformers frequently. Our theology would align with PCA minus confessional recitation and sprinkling of course😬.
i doubt reformed baptists have a heavier weight on evangelism than presbys. As to baptism, either works for us.
I find that the term "reformed" seems to be a term of great confusion. Some seem to use it as a synonym for Protestant while others seem to use it as a synonym for Calvinist.
Truthfully, there's validity to both, in the sense that someone who identifies with the Protestant *Reformation* is *Reformed* in that sense. In common parlance though, I take Reformed to be synonymous with Calvinism. Indeed, I've heard Lutheran brethren identify Calvinists as 'the Reformed' when distinguishing themselves from them doctrinally. I think if you announced yourself as 'Reformed', the average person from another Christian tradition would assume you meant Calvinist, in most cases.
@@Mic1904 Indeed. I think that's correct. When I hear the term, I generally assume Calvinism. However, it seems odd that Calvinists got a lock on the term "Reformed" when many non-Calvinistic traditions sprang out of the Reformation.
@@sorenpx It's a good question, and as a Calvinist myself (who prefers the term 'Reformed'), I couldn't give you an answer here, nor find much historical info, other than some suggestion that it was a name used fairly early on to distinguish followers of Luther from followers of Zwingli (and later Calvin) based on their different interpretations of the Lord's Supper (real presence, etc). But WHO exactly first claimed the name (did the Calvinists claim it themselves, or was it ascribed to them much the same as the word 'Calvinist' itself was?), I'm not sure.
I would say old-time Baptist Associationalism satisfies Connectionalism. And no RB Church I have been in has lacked a plurality of elders.
Now modern SBC associations don't do the same work, I agree. But groups like the RB Network do.
LOL sooooooooo no one took a small peek at the Canon of Dort or the Belgic before writing the WCF 1646…not even a small peek?
What is a reformed Baptist? They gave up the camp meetings and chicken after church?
In earlier times, Calvinistic Baptists were called Particular Baptists with reference to election.
Pastor’s shouldn’t be hired, they should be raised up within the church and sent out.
I disagree Pastor Matt. Wouldn't anyone who holds to the five solas be reformed? Being confessional, covenental, etc seem extra ingredients added in but not essential for being reformed.
No, that is only a part of what it means to be reformed. It is a good step.
17:07 YES WE WERE BOTH THINKING OF THE CONSTRUCTICONS
There is a significant difference between 16th century Reformation happened in the continents and the 17 century Reformation in England. There is information available online on the social, religious, and political backgrounds of the English civil war. The early Reformation was doctrinal but the Reformation in the 17 century was focused on politics. The confessions that came out in the 17c England deviated form the original Reformation. The Covenant Theology came out then and is still argued among theologians. In many ways, I think the WCF is a valuable tool for education. But, the Covenant Theology takes us back to the conditional covenant. And together with the active obedience of Christ, it produces numerous questions.
The number of the Baptists increased dramatically then. When the doctrine of divine election is wrongly used, it can give people a false sense of salvation. And one may have the delusion of having a divine power to judge others and to keep the Law near perfectly. The proof is the fact that people still argue about the saint's life described in Romans 7.
Many Baptists still do not see the difference between a visible church and a civil government. And the Presbyterian and the Baptist church (and the Congregational) do not differentiate from each other much because they share the same backgrounds.
The issue of Baptist church is that they do not accept the infant baptism. People think this small but it completely changes the orthodox view of a visible church. It is God's will that the Israel nation in the Old testament is replaced by the visible church in the New Testament. The Baptist denomination does not accept this as far as I know.
The SBC is the largest and sadly, most recognizable segment the Baptist denomination. While the Reformed movement is making strides and various inroads into the Baptist faith, most are solidly Arminian and steeped in synergy. When addressing Baptist issues, it is incorrect to let the SBC be the standard for all. SBC has been losing members for several decades, and many who left it are still in the Baptist tradition. Baptists are incredibly diverse and if you take the time to research it you will surprised at the depth variety of Baptists. We have always (since 1609) fought over numerous issues and run our churches vastly different. We are not homogeneous in thought, nature, or practice. I have practiced my faith around the globe and have observed firsthand that nothing is settled, or nailed down in church polity. Forty years ago I left the SBC, and that is when I began to understand how diverse our faith is. The Convention has never been able to get its members under one tent- even though it has been deft at extracting money. I am sorry to have to tell you that you are trying to play whack a mole with one hammer and 70 moles. Nothing is simple or straightforward concerning the collective Baptist faith.
Any solid Ref Baptist church is locally congregational, one’s the follow the London Baptist Confession, so they are ran by a plurality of elders with a pastor. Of course one of their primary needs with Presbyterians is the larger bodies that essentially define the term presbytery as you know. Not consistent to just throw in a random C-connectionalism term just to say essentially reformed abbot it’s aren’t reformed because they’re not Presbyterian. Although of course there are a few more distinctions. Really they match 4 out of your 5 I’d say they’re reformed. Again I’m Pres myself I just love those guys and even though they are wrong on pedobaptism I’m still routing for our cousins. God bless
The 1689 is certainly indebted to the Westminster, but I still like to say it's the most eformed confession ;)
I would like to point out two things. First is in regard to the autonomy of congregationalism insofar as the removal of an elder; this should be addressed in the by laws and should depend upon the common suffrage of the membership. Agreed that the church that you referred to made an error by going to an outside agency. That is not only unbiblical, it is embarrassing. It is unfortunate that the church in question did not have a fully fleshed out section in their by laws for this, but that is not an inherent fault line for congregationalism. Rather it is poor application. Secondly is the notion that Reformed Baptists hold to a more memorial view of the Lord's Supper.. this is simply incorrect. LBCF 30.1 clearly states that it is spiritual nourishment, thus an effectual means of grace. We view it the same exact way that you do, the only difference being our consistency with how we fence both ordinances. Your video does indeed have a spirit of charity and for that of course I thank you. However I would like to gently point out that from our perspective, Presbyterians are not the gatekeepers for what we can or should call ourselves etc. I would agree with four of your prerequisites, but not the connectivity one. Congregationalists (big C) are indisputably of the protestant reformation. That is simply a historic fact. Presbyterians went one direction on ecclisiology, and the Congregationalists another. We came out from them. The word reformed is simply not synonymous with the word presbyterian, the stream is historically wider than that. Reformed Baptist churches do have healthy relationships with other RB churches, but we remain autonomous as we are congregational. I pray that you read this with the spirit that I intend, which is amicably and without anger or bitterness. Thank you for your video, though I disagree with parts of what you said. Have a blessed Lord's Day Sabbath.
CATHOLICISM IS SYNONYMOUS TO CHRISTIANITY. WE ARE ACTUALLY THE FIRST CHRISTIANS. WE FIRST CHRISTIANS PRAISE GOD EVERY DAY, NOT ONLY SATURDAYS. HAVE A BLESSED SUNDAY.
Im from Massachusetts and I’m disappointed I can’t be part of your church
We are more Reformed than Presbyterians. We simply have a different view of the covenants.
Spot on - from an English Particular Baptist
Are Reformed Anglicans Reformed? :)
Reformed= Calvinist, Confessional, Covenantal. So yes, reformed Baptists that hold to the 1689 second London Baptist confession of faith are indeed reformed:) they just do the extra biblical baby dedication because they are a little lighter in their “Covenantal” category.
The areas I would say Presbyterians are not fully reformed would be their church government (autonomous churches are the biblical pattern) and 2 allowance of unregenerate church membership but this video is probably a waste of time because there are much bigger issues we should be focusing on right now rather than straining out gnats.
Would love to hear a bit more about this Partialism heresy. LOL
Donall and Conall will explain this for you--just search for "that's modalism patrick".
It’s in some ways similar to Social Trinitarianism, read Robert Letham’s book on The Trinity, amazing resource and he hits on this a bit if I remember correctly
@@danbrown586 beat me to it
Btw… the SBC is evangelical… not reformed… so…
Yeah… that’s the downside of being a reformed baptist.. you always get lumped together with the southern baptist.
I go to a southern baptist church, because there are no reformed churches near where I live. The majority of southern baptist churches that I have visited.. I agree with them about 20% of the time.
Evangelical is a term used by Luther, and Calvin. When someone calls themself evangelical, they are connecting themself to the Reformation heritage
@@Owngeeeeee THEN DONT GO! We certainly dont want u to be "lumped" in with us.
@@shawnd04 wrong on so many levels. so the reformed churches own the word "evangelical"? guess they stole it from the baptists while they were drowning them in the river!
@@caman171 I can’t not go, lest I be sinning by forsaking the assembling of Gods people. However, if you read my post; I said that I only agree with the MAJORITY of SBC churches about 20% of the time.
In the church that I am apart of, I am in about 80 percent agreement with them. So that’s pretty good. If there were a reformed church near me then I would be going there, but there isn’t.
I also have had conversations with our leadership about leaving the SBC as a church. Until that time, which seems to be fast approaching (if the leadership will see it), then I am stuck in the SBC.
Until such time, you will have to deal with me being lumped together with you. Of course in all charity, I am happy to be lumped together with you in the universal/catholic sense.. believing all faithful SBC members to be joint members with me in Christ. However; I certainly would want to be separated from the SBC when it comes to doctrinal/confessional identity.
“not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”
Hebrews 10:25 NASB1995
So for a true Biblical Reformed Baptist church the answer is yes 😎
Since Ed Litton is not a confessional Reformed Baptist why do you even raise the issue of his church’s statement on God? This is the poisoning the well fallacy.
*corrected the Westminster….
I believe in predestination,, TULIP and Calvanism.
According to the preaching of at least one "Reformed Baptist" assembly that I experienced rather fully, Reformed Baptists do NOT believe the Reformed and Lutheran doctrine of Santification. They reduce it to a man-made sign of one's personal piety and holiness. That intrusion of pan-Baptis pietism horrified me. I ceased so much as setting my foot in the door after becoming aware of what so-called "Reformed Baptists" (or at least that bunch of them) believe in a false way about sanfification. Actualy, as a Lutheran, even in a doctrinally starved area such as the Abitibi, it is better NOT to settle with anything so second rate as their find of teaching. I have obtained all of the important liturgical books of the Lutheran Church (L.C.M.S.) and use them to worship alone until such time as a Lutheran or genuinely Reformed church presence comes to this area where I live.
Presbytery and "real teeth" - quite the cruel joke!
When my son was killed on a PCA church campus (the largest in the presbytery, and one of the largest in the PCA), and the elders wouldn't talk to me about the church's assessment of what happened without their team of lawyers and insurance agents present - and me just a member without having secured any legal representation of my own - I appealed to the presbytery. I just wanted to talk with the elders, not engage in legal wranglings. I asked the presbytery for help. But none was given by the toothless, spineless presbytery. I had even said I would be glad to have a "Peacemaker" representative direct and order a meeting (one sans the church's attorneys and insurance agents). To no avail.They steered clear of the matter, and said they wouldn't get involved. From what I could tell it seemed that the political future within the General Assembly of the presbytery representatives was more important to them than helping a PCA member whose son had been tragically killed on a PCA church campus. Better for the presby reps to let the church elders have their risk management cover than get entangled in a situation fraught with possible risk for the presby reps also.
"Real teeth" indeed. Ha!
THIS IS YOUR REALITY OF REFORMED CALVINISM SHAME ON YOU !
“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.”
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)
“…we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan
those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into
salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to
destruction…he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given
over to damnation.”
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 7)
God arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death and are to glorify him by their destruction.( John Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6
John Piper: "God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. @-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes-as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem-God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child . . .
Quote from Luthers own writings:
“Burn their synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand… If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused.” (About the Jews and Their Lies,’ quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290.)
“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham” (Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413.)
“The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves.”(Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502.)
Luther was a Calvinist before Calvin.
Luther teaches: “…with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, (man) has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bond slave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.”
(From the essay, ‘Bondage of the Will,’ ‘Martin Luther: Selections From His Writings, ed. by Dillenberger, Anchor Books, 1962 p. 190.)
“…we do everything of necessity and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil…” (Ibid., p. 188.)
“Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider… Therefore, necessity, not free will, is the controlling principle of our conduct. God is the author of what is evil as well as of what is good, and, as He bestows happiness on those who merit it not, so also does He damn others who deserve not their fate.”
(‘De Servo Arbitrio’, 7, 113 seq., quoted by O’Hare, in ‘The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, pp. 266-267.)
“His (Judas) will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world.”
(De servo Arbitrio, against man’s free will.)
LET THE READER DECIDE WHAT IS TRUTH The above is the unvarnished truth of what the Cult of Calvinism stands for!
Gods Word says to the false teachers of Calvinism and all other false religions:
Matthew 23: 15-16 15Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. 16Woe to you, blind guides!
“If anyone causes one of these little ones-those who believe in me-to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! Matthew 18 6-7
Your Calvinist arguments have made you an enemy to the grace of God to His created human beings. You unknowingly have become an agent of Satan's kingdom. Wake up and give your head a shake.
You are guilty by association with these Calvinist ant-gospel players.
TRUTH IN LOVE
Interesting, thank you. perhaps coronavirus is refining the church?
We should be careful not to conflate confessional Reformed Baptists with the SBC, I wouldn’t even call the SBC reformed by accident. I feel I am minority report where I was once 99% there on pedobaptism at one point, but have come back to credobaptism of late. I am still fully covenantal in my systematic theology though. I can actually say, even though I disagree, I fully understand pedobaptist convictions and even see the beauty in it. I wish some presbys were willing to understand RB understandings a little better and I wish Reformed Baptists were willing to be more Presbyterian in their church governance as well.
just because we disagree does not mean we do not understand. Yes, RB are brothers.
Unfortunately, you have mischaracterized the reformed Baptist view of church polity by failing to recognize the distinction between elder-led congregationalism and elder rule (the presbyterian version). Most reformed Baptist churches are indeed ultimately congregational in that they believe the keys to the kingdom lie with the congregation and that the congregation can fire the elders. The congregation usually votes on the big stuff like church membership or church discipline or appointing an elder. But, otherwise, they have a plurality of elders who run everything else about the church at the service if the congregation. This is functionally identical to the presbyterian elder rule model (and in this case, when properly ordered, would avoid the situation you referenced because the congregation itself would step in and choose between the conflicting elders, or remove them both). You've committed a definitional fallacy by failing to acknowledge variations in application of congregational polity.
Tl;Dr: Reformed Baptists DO believe in plurality of eldership and their version of congregationalism relies on elder leadership. Yet, the final and ultimate authority lies with the congregation. They can fire the elders if necessary. But otherwise, the elders run the show.
When you're talking about Reformed Baptists, to me it seems like there is a world of difference between Voddie Baucham/Jeff Durbin/James White and Adrian Rogers, a notorious and staunch Arminian, considering Arminianism is simply repackaged Semi-Pelaginaism. (Put Leighton Flowers and Dave Hunt in that category as well) I don't see how Rogers could be considered Reformed simply because he's not a Papist. If you listen to the messages the former deliver about the centrality of the glory of God and His purposes in election, versus what Rogers et al say, there's no connection at all. It's like two different religions.
The SBC has nothing to do with the denomination of Reformed Baptist other than the fact that they have Baptist in their name. Totally different. Lol PCA here
Turns out i am Reformed after all
The Reformed Baptists that are the most Reformed practice Exclusive Psalmody. There are only a few that exist in the world.
I've heard of one EP baptist church and they are hyper calvinist and obviously just single churches can be pointed out cause they don't believe in biblical church government.
My question has to be reformed from what and to what?
If you have and faithfully read the king James Bible,, believe the simple fundimentals of the faith therein, you are usually close to faith and truth...
So much Christianese out there. What a term means to one person definately means something else to someone else... Even the cults use Christianese to confuse believers to lead them down the rabbit hole into delusion and decdption... so very sad...
No.
30:17 Since when is being a pastor a job⁉️ I thought it's a calling 🤔 Besides, a Sunday pagan is a Sunday pagan, whether a Methodist or a Baptist, a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, a pagan is a pagan‼️ Repent, sun worshippers‼️
Cane also chose lifestyle and worship based on how he chose rather than how God called him to live. .
Id prefer spc use a new name and not take southern Baptist name into the Nihlism.
If your interpretation of doctrine is new then your something else or new .
Your going to new then use new names to fit your new definitions.
4.5/5
Everyone claims to be reformed, but almost no church is practicing the regulative principle of worship. EXCEPTIONS to the Westminster Of Faith is normal. Most churches have 9 commandments , Not 10. commandments. The PCA is not reformed and reformed Baptist are not reformed.
But they have the beards though.
New Covenant Theology
Though I follow the doctrines of the “Reformed” Baptists, I never really liked the term. I prefer “Traditional” Baptists as I think it’s a better distinction within the Baptist faith group itself. Our differences do lie in church autonomy, believer’s baptism/baptism my immersion, symbolic view of communion, and church government (of which there really is no standard form among all Baptist churches). But thank you Matthew for showing the similarities because it is pretty certain we far more agree on the gospel, the way of salvation, and progressive holiness in this Christian life. Also, I watched your view on Kevin Max closely as I made my own videos on his faith defection. He willfully defected and became an instant enemy of God’s people. With this form of apostasy, I would think you may not have been tough enough. But your points were well-taken and spot on. People need to stop following these celebs immediately.
why "Traditional Baptist"??? i assume u mean u believe that calvinistic baptist are the "traditional" view among baptists"" however that is false. there have ALWAYS been general baptists and in fact they are the first recorded baptist church in history (thomas helwys and john smiths church in 1608) the general baptists far outnumberd the calvinistic (particular) baptists until the the act of toleration allowed the particualr baptists freedom to worship, while still continuing the persecution of the general baptists. because the particialar baptists adopted the 1689 closely mirrored the westminster confession, which had already been approved by the english parliament, they were left alone. here in the USA the Separate Baptists and Free Will Baptists were either as large as particualr baptists, or very close to it. the General Baptists rarely had no written confessions as they were truly "sola scriptura" and rejected any man made creed. they said "the bible alone IS our creed. however, individual general congregations did have their own "articles of faith". because they had no larger confession for the whole group, history doesnt record them as monolithic, thus giving the appearance at times, that calvinism was the predominate view. the New Hampshire Confession was an attempt to create something that both groups could subscribe to, and was the predominate baptist confession after the civil war until the baptist message and faith was written in 1925
Reformed Baptists have as much to do with Anabaptists as Presbyterians have to do with the Nestorian Church. Please! Yes, we both are credibaptists. However, the reason we are is completely different, the same way that Presbyterians and Roman Catholics both baptize babies, but for completely different reasons. I believe that both London confessions say right in the first paragraph: "we are not Anabaptists!"
In the technical sense of the historic definition of "Reformed" Baptists are not Reformed. No Baptist can ever be thought of as Reformed since infant baptism is not a tenet of new covenant doctrine and is in opposition to the new covenant and the principles upon which it rests. Baptists recognize the unity and diversity of the covenants whereas Reformed thinkers do not. Which is why the word new has no significance in the Reformed sense of covenant. Just because you agree with the doctrine of the Sovereign grace of God does not require that you must be part of the Reformed movement of the 16th century. Although Reformed Baptists prefer to be regarded as being tied to this historic movement because of their adherence to Calvinistic soteriology and the universal invisible church idea many Sovereign grace Baptists do not. The London Baptists of 1689 published their confession of faith virtually word for word with the Westminster. Outside of matters of Ecclesiology particularly the mode and subjects of true genuine Christian baptism they are identical. The Baptists of London never thought of themselves as Reformed Baptist only as a denomination of properly Baptized disciples of Jesus Christ who were definitely influenced by the Puritan movement of the times. Most Reformed Baptists today earnestly wish to be identified with Reformed theology.
Just a smidgen too far…..plurality of elders yes, but cooperation does not mean an ecclesiastical authority outside the local church. You have to reform a just touch more to get away from this error of Rome. By this definition John Owen wasn’t reformed. Other than that small point seems you are right on the money.
If you're not Catholic you're Reformed. No Calvinism required.