Overview of Reformed Baptist History

[@johnnycharles702]

Thanks for this. I'm Orthodox. I grew up around Freewill, Southern, and Old Regular Baptist and understand their theology pretty well. I'm just starting to meet reformed Baptist as an adult and they seem to have a massively different theology than the others. This video was helpful in bringing me to a point where I understand who the reformed Baptist are and what they believe. I'll keep you all in my prayes.

[@Anthony-vl6zd]

thanks, I think...

[@Maddog_Mark]

I really appreciate the reformed rookie channel

[@ReformedRookie]

praise God!

[@ETHANGELIST]

As a Presbyterian, I love my Reformed Baptist brethren and so I wanted to learn more about its history/origins. I realized I didn't know much haha

[@ReformedRookie]

And likewise we love our Presbyterian brothers! SDG! I hope the video helped.

[@dorothyott7978]

@@ReformedRookie Q

[@RobertEMason]

Same here

[@Logos-Nomos]

If you loved someone who refused to be baptized, you would tell him, right?

[@lionelscout]

Presbyterians are already baptized and, like us, know it has nothing to do with salvation.

[@benjamingallows]

Really appreciating this content. Thanks brother.

[@ReformedRookie]

Praise God- glad it helped

[@covenantcitychurchmn6394]

A helpful overview to situate ourselves to the outworking of the Reformed Baptist. SDG.

[@ReformedRookie]

amen and praise God!

[@rsm1161]

Amen to that. Thank you for this

[@ReformedRookie]

Glad you liked it!

[@dunlapmichaell]

Thanks for the overview. I actually didn't think about the Presb and Reformed Baptist difference on church polity.

[@ratnaongole5607]

Thank for the information. I have received a lot of information about Reformed Baptist History. Thank you.

[@ReformedRookie]

Praise God!

[@papist370]

Great summary of the history of Reformed Baptists.

[@ReformedRookie]

Praise God brother

[@larrycdalton]

Thanks, however you left out the major influence on what would become the Reformed Baptist/Sovereign Grace Baptist Movement: the 1644/1646 1st London Baptist Confession of Faith - the first Calvinistic Confession by Baptists after the 1593 John Smythe Confession which has commonly been identified as the first emergence of the Baptist Church.

[@WHATEVERYOUD0]

I didn't know john gill was from that church.james smith was another great reform Baptist from that church.He was right before spurgeon.

[@TheRoark]

Another movement that is really interesting pre-reformation is the Waldensians. There is a great video on the youtube channel Truth Unites on it. Check pastor Gavin Ortlund out if you are looking for more great Reformed Baptist youtubers! Great video, love learning about church history. :)

[@ReformedRookie]

Thanks brother! I love Gavin- his work is excellent. Blessings.

[@ericgilbert8725]

There's a waldensian festival in Valdese NC every year about 10 minutes away from my house.

[@jamesskinner1902]

Met Tab is still going strong today.

[@donaldzahnke1951]

I was a southern Baptist

[@javvajiphilomon627]

I am so happy in I am in Baptist in India my father is Baptist missionary 1970 a study in serampore university in India

[@marcopozo6988]

Happy to learn about 1689✅SDG

[@SpotterVideo]

Why is the term "New Covenant" not found in the 1689 LBCF? It is found in the Bible. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) Watch the KZbin videos “The New Covenant” by Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[@ReformedRookie]

We do preach the "whole" gospel, and implicit in the term New Testament is the new covenant. There are various scripture references in the confession that point to the new covenant, i.e Ezek 36:26-27, 31, Jer 32:40) All 1689'ers hold to the new covenant in Christ Jesus.

[@SpotterVideo]

@@ReformedRookie If all 1689'ers believe in the truth of the New Covenant, when are you going to update the confession to contain what the Bible actually says about the New Covenant? We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. In Galatians 4:24-31 Paul spoke of the "two covenants" and told the Galatian believers tot "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage". Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH- Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

[@ReformedRookie]

@@SpotterVideo it doesn't need updating because we already believe in the new covenant- not sure what your point is. Are you saying that 1689'ers don't believe in the new covenant because those exact words aren't in it? Is there a specific confession you hold to?

[@SpotterVideo]

@@ReformedRookie The 1689ers have come up with something called "Covenant Theology", and their man-made confessions have ignored the Bible verses which promise and show the fulfillment of the New Covenant in the Bible. In its place they have created a term known as "the moral law" (the ten commandments), and claim this moral law was given to Adam in the garden. How could Adam have committed adultery before the fall, and how would Adam have honored his mother? Based on Colossians 2:16-17, the Sabbath day was a "shadow" of Christ. We now rest in His works at Calvary every day of the week for those who are in the New Covenant.

[@shawnmathis3843]

@@SpotterVideo 1 he chose another god when he chose the devil 2 he idolized his belly, made his belly his god 3 took Gods name in vain when he did not believe him 4 kept not the rest wherein God had set him 5 dishonored his father in heaven 6 massacred himself and all his posterity 7 committed spiritual fornication in eyes and mind 8 stole what god set aside to not be meddled with 9 bore witness against God when he believed the witness of the Devil before him 10 coveted and evil covetousness

[@susiequsie1980]

This guy is awesome 👍 even I can pay attention to him. I think it's his New England accent (Massachusetts?) Anywho, thanks for breaking this down for us simple folk😊

[@ReformedRookie]

glad to help- his accent is Long Island- "lawnguylan"

[@RedeemedRogueMolecules]

Nothing would be greater for the kingdom than for God to add a dash to it.

[@mmtoss6530]

Why aren’t the Anglicans considered Protestants? Many of them would consider themselves Reformed.

[@bigtobacco1098]

Because they existed prior

[@servusbellator8554]

Contributing to the contemporary Redefining of historical theological terms and systems to be more inclusive? Particular Baptists and the 1689 LBC was Not even hinted at as “Reformed” until after the 1970s and was not considered Reformed Theology nor would have been by the Reformers, nor the Divines, and not even the Particular Baptists themselves. That is a very contemporary divergence with ahistorical definitions. This should be clear in how the Reformed Confessions address those who reject biblical infant baptism and would have be subject to church discipline, as well as the 1689 drafters omitting any references of "true Reformed religion" from the WCF and Savory in their aberration. It is interesting how some Baptists like to refer to baptism as "Secondary Loci," as Matthew Barrett (whom I have respect for) refers to it, or Dr. R. Albert Mohler in his "Theological Triage." The problem is that the Reformers, the historically confessional Reformed, and the Reformed Confessions Did Not view baptism as "secondary loci" but as an integral mark of the true Church in it's "pure administration." Those churches holding to the Reformed Confessions during the 17th Century didn't view the English Particular Baptists as a pure church due to their unpure administration of the sacraments. There is enough primary sources demonstrating this for anyone who tales an objective historiography approach. Everyone seems to also not understand that many individuals define the 5 points by their summation within the acronym TULIP thinking that’s the full understanding of the doctrinal points rather than as they're defined in their confessional source the Canons of Dordt. Ex. Unconditional Election according to the Canons of Dordt First Head, Article 17 includes the presumptive election of covenant children. If one does not hold to this position, which Baptists don’t, then they Don’t hold to Unconditional Election as Confessionally defined and are Not a true 5 point Calvinist. Not to mention that same Synod in their Church Order fenced the table from those who neglected baptism of covenant children. It's blatant anachronism and a false equivocation to equate post-Reformation Baptist theology with early church credobaptists that were not theologically Baptist. There is a large consensus of historical scholarship to the contrary especially among Patristic Scholarship. There were no Baptirsts in the early church, there were some Catholics who **preferred** credobaptism for either pragmatic reasons or superstitious reasons while also demonstrating that infant baptism was commonly practiced to the Apostles, but they were Catholic theologically. Tertullian in his stated preference for Credobaptism, being the first truly recognized and often referenced by Baptists, contextually defeats the Baptists intent theologically and historically. It would also be mistake to equate early Catholic theology with late Middle Ages Catholic and especially counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism. Dr. R. Scott Clark states it well: "Are the Particular Baptists “in the reformed tradition”? No. The consequence of redefining Reformed to admit the Baptists is that we must give up our reading of redemptive history (e.g., the continuity of the covenant of grace), our way of reading Scripture (i.e., our hermeneutic), our understanding of the nature of the covenant of grace, our view of the visible church, the internal/external distinction, our understanding the sacraments, our understanding of the promises God has made to believers and their children, the nature of the visible church, and, as we will see, our eschatology in favor of an over-realized eschatology that permeates the Baptist vision." As a Historical Theology major I see no benefit to such anachronism. Individuals who haven't done their research seem to attempt to portray the relationship between the Reformed and Particular Baptists as more congenial than it was in the 16th and 17th century. There are even Baptist/Particular Baptist Historians themselves who have written on this. Imposing post 1980s American theological sentimentalities on previous generations historical contexts is poor scholarship and does nothing beneficial to Historical Christendom

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

Get off your high horse. Reformed baptist are reformed and adhere to covenant theology, I'd argue more faithfully than Presbyterians

[@servusbellator8554]

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 So you claim my post to be "high horse" then respond even more "high horse" while also displaying a lack of understanding of historical theology? Probably not the best tactic, especially when your very articulation demonstrates more credability in that which you're opposing . There are Particular Baptists out there who have agrued this as well, those who have an unbiased understanding of historiography.

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

@@servusbellator8554 Reformed Baptists Semper Reformada

[@servusbellator8554]

@@AllforOne_OneforAll1689 It's never a good thing to make onself a cassualty of the Dunning Kruger Effect, especially for the sake of arguing one's point publicly. I encourage you to come to a more educated understanding of historiography, regardless of your chosen theological convictions, and then work on studying primary source texts instead of regurgitating others anachronism. It's a form of bearing false witness when intentionally excluding historical facts for the sake of one's bias presuppositions. Peace of Christ

[@AllforOne_OneforAll1689]

@@servusbellator8554 Reformed baptists adhere to covenant theology. We're reformed and I would argue even more reformed than Presbyterians because we have a more faithful understanding of the covenant of grace.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

so much superficiality...

[@lindygrace674]

We didn’t need a reformation….we need to just stay with the truth in the word of God NOT man’s ideas etc

[@ReformedRookie]

we always have to measure the TRADITIONS of man against the scriptures- thats why the reformers were sola scripture- the scripture is the standard, not man's ideas.