Why Reformed Baptists are not Reformed 

Reformed are the friends we made along the way

The chat section in the server is something else

I was predestined to love this video

I used to be Presbyterian as well, but unfortunately my former church turned very woke, and so I wanted to turn to a church that better represented the Bible. I'm glad to know not all Presbyterians are like the ones that ran my church.

I pray everyone has a blessed Pentecost Sunday

theology and minecraft is a beautiful combination

Something general I’d like to say as a Baptist turned Catholic. Extreme literalism (except for “this is my body”, “this is my blood”, and sometimes Genesis 1) and general anti-institutionalism are the two greatest weaknesses of the Baptist tradition. Unfortunately, they are also at the core of many Baptists’ personal theology.

Really informative content brother. Thank you. God bless

As a Baptist who is currently studying at an SBC seminary, I would say that there is a shift in the newer generation to embrace historically Baptist principles that are more in line with the Reformed tradition and the magisterial Reformation. More of us now embrace many of the points of “SPACE” like spiritual presence, amilennialism, ecumenical creeds, and predestination which the previous generation who led the Conservative Resurgence did not always hold. Our seminaries now even embrace a certain strain of Covenantal theology called progressive Covenantalism, which is way too complicated to explain here. Though I think you are right in saying that Baptist are not Reformed in the truest sense, I would also point out that it’s not historically accurate to say that Baptist emerged from Anabaptists and the radical reformation. Having read there writings, there are many things we do disagree with them on, specifically the idea that the church cease to exist for a millennia. Baptist tradition emerged from English separatism, with John Smyth and Thomas Helwys being the origins of the general Baptists and the JLJ church in Southwark, England being the origins of the particular Baptists.

Your knowledge and articulation is excellent.

As a particular Baptist I would ask ,were the puritans reformed? The only reason I ask is because we come from them. I would also point out that the reason we don't have many Baptist countries we endured some pretty heavy persecution during the time of the Reformation.

As a Baptist, I always found it weird when people say "Reformed Baptist" because of that point you made about us not really liking institutional approaches to faith and theology. Not to long ago I visited a Baptist Church where they were preaching that Catholicism is a cult. I've heard that said by a lot of Baptists actually. Mostly in smaller church settings where I doubt they have any understanding of theology or what the Catholic church teaches. I also find that Baptist are more likely to say the line "Christianity is not a religion. It's a relationship with Christ." Not a fan of that belief. The word "Religion" is seen so negatively that we don't even want to say we are religious. The main two beliefs that stand out about Baptist is how we handle Baptism, hence the name, and that we believe in the over simplified phrase "Once Saved Always Saved". I never liked that line either. Had a Church of God teacher tell me that Baptists teach that it's ok to live a sinful life because of this belief, which is not even true. I thought the whole idea of "Reformed Baptist" just came from that belief that we kinda sorta share with Calvinists that you can't lose your salvation. I'm glad to have this closer look at the comparisons and differences because theology is far more complex and interesting than that. I'm still learning a lot about theology and these videos have been helpful. I did take Theology in college and I'm convinced I had a bad teacher. He thought very highly of himself and looked down on a lot of the different beliefs. I don't get that same vibe from you. Starting this video, I thought "oh here we go. Dude is just going to trash Baptists." But no. You approached it logically and with respect. Like you understand why people believe in each of these different backgrounds and you believe the way you do based on your own extensive research and experiences. I respect that.

As a reformed Baptist I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I’m sure it will spark many great conversations between me and my Presbyterian friends.

In Brazil, the majority of "Reformed" groups that I participate in or know of are Baptist. In fact, one of the biggest Brazilian Christian RU-vid channels is known as "Dois dedos de teologia" and is recognized for spreading Reformed theology through the Brazilian internet. However, the most prominent Reformed preacher in Brazil is Agustus Nicodemus Lopes, who is a Presbyterian. I myself am from a technically Baptist denomination where the majority of pastors adhere more to Reformed theology than any other.

You're videos have been the tipping point for me. For a long time I've been uncomfortable in my Baptist church. It's time for me to go. Thank you for explaining things in a way most can't seem too 😅

John Macarthur is not a reformed baptist (1689)

That's why I prefer the nomenclature "Particular Baptist" as is historically known

I'm a Reformed Baptist. The 2LBC is a Reformed confesssion. Luther told Erasmus that the nature and relation of the will of man and the will of God was the "hinge" on which the Reformation turned. The central and primary distinctive of Reformed theology is Reformed soteriology and the 5 Solas. Reformed Baptists are Reformed in every way, descendents of Puritans from the church of England. We don't and have never asked any other church whether we are Reformed, we don't need their permission or recognition. We live "semper reformanda," which is why we jettisoned the unbiblical notion of paedo-baptism.

Lot to unpack here. First off I am relieved that, I, as a reformed baptist affirm SPACE and am therefore reformed, just with the sign of the covenant of Grace being rightly administered to those who believe as it has been extended beyond the borders of the people of Israel. Even Presbyterians affirm some discontinuity between circumcision and baptism, so this shouldn’t be an issue. Classical Reformed baptists affirm all of the rest of this, btw, Gavin has a video on spiritual presence as an example. Also you’re wrong that reformed baptists come out of the radical reformation. This is a common problem on this channel of lumping particular baptists and low church baptists more generally. I love you man, but I really hope you nuance this a bit more in the future.

Man I haven't been on the server in a week, I can only imagine how it's changed

As a Reformed Baptist....this video hurt my soul :D

As a Presbyterian, could you cover the topic of predestination and divine election. Its an issue i struggle with and would like to hear your thoughts on it. Thanks!

Could you please post your music that you always use? The ones you create, I mean. Its really good!

I’d love to see a video about different Bible translations.

Something to note about baptists. There are Baptist universities and seminaries and things formed by baptist institutions. There are even some beautiful Baptist churches. However, you just don’t see that as much as you see us Catholics or you Presbyterians. This is in NO WAY an endorsement of Baptist theology, but I want to make sure we don’t straw man them. However, it would be right to say all non institutional churches hold to baptist theology, since non denominational churches are baptist churches in a former Pizza Hut essentially.

I'm pretty sure you'd disagree with my taxonomy but I use the term "Reformed Baptist" to describe credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and are covenantal. I use the term "Particular Baptist" mostly to describe credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and are dispensational. There is another category, which I belong to, which are credobaptists who believe in the doctrines of grace (TULIP) and adhere to 1689 Federalism consistently. In other words, we believe the Mosaic Covenant was somewhat typological in nature - pointing backwards toward Eden and the covenant of works (Law), and pointing forwards to the New Covenant (sacrifices that pointed towards Christ and ultimate forgiveness- Grace). I don't think most 1689 Federalists are consistent though because many still believe the Sabbath is binding except transferred to the first day of the week, and still believe the pope is the Anti-Christ. I would share most of the beliefs of Reformed Baptists, minus their view of the Sabbath and the pope. It is true that a pope could be an anti-Christ, but I don't necessarily think the pope in 1689 or currently is the anti-Christ. And, I believe it is perfectly appropriate to consider the Lord's Day (Sunday) as a valid day of worship, but I don't think it is necessarily required in the same sense as the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath. So, in other words, these taxonomies involve the person's view of covenantal versus dispensation versus 1689 Federalism, and how consistent the person is on their view of each of the aforementioned. I use the phrase "Particular Baptist" to describe myself, though, and don't worry about all these details. General Baptists are those who believe in general redemption and Particular Baptists believe in particular redemption. My objection to being called a Calvinistic Baptist is the association with Calvin, which can be viewed as cultlike, in that it focuses on the theology of one particular man, and I don't hold all the beliefs of Calvin.

Regarding church government (another video of yours): I agree, that Presbyterian polity is the best, and most close the the early church. My question would be how the PCUSA could have turned liberal if there is the council of presbyters, which would hold the individual church (and its leaders) accountable?

Hey, I found your channel somewhat recently and I've been loving your content. I'm a conservative Presbyterian, and I wanted to ask if there are any books that you would recommend on Reformed theology. Thanks!

Sources for when/where John Macarthur said those things? And what did Voddie Bachaum say and source?

Brother, God bless you. The gatekeeper has spoken hehehe. Nice to hear your opinions, even when I don't agree with them. You have redefined the term reformed in a way no one has known before and invented a new acronym just to kick the reformed Baptists out of the reformed train. Amazing. See you in heaven! (or in this earth if God wills it that way)

This understanding that "baptism saves" is not reflected in John Calvin's Institutes or the WCF, unless I'm mistaken. You're the first Presbyterian I've heard who has said this. Baptism as a means of grace for the elect is certainly there, but I don't see any usage of the terminology that "baptism saves," probably due to the fact that this is going to be misunderstood; if you say "baptism saves," it sounds as if you're saying "baptism justifies," which we do not believe. It only "saves" in the sense that it is a means of grace and reflects our washing of sins. It sanctifies, yes, but it does not "save" in the sense the Lutherans (regeneration) or Roman Catholics assert. And absolutely, Christ's real spiritual presence is there in the Lord's Supper, but this is not the same as the Lutheran or Roman Catholic view, which assert his physical presence.

Average Tulip fan vs average Space enjoyer

I am a Catholic. Thank you for helping me have a better understanding of reformed theology. The only knowledge I have from it are my many Reformed baptist which as you have said isn't really true reformed theology.

You spelled predestination wrong when you put up the space acronym but good video

Former Baptist. Should be in for a good video here.

What is your favorite Bible translation, Zoomer? I know most of the mainline churches use the NRSV (as well as many Catholics from what I understand), but the “Reformed” Baptists and more conservative people (thought not so conservative that they’re KJV only) swear by the ESV nowadays. I personally have no problem with translations like the NIV and NLT and often read them if I’m not doing deep study. Do you like or dislike when the text is translated to be gender neutral?

This is interesting. I’m Baptist myself but I find myself agreeing with it sympathizing with a lot of these SPACE points. Spiritual Presence- The idea that the sacraments have spiritual saving power for only the elect does make some sense. My question is this, does this view hold that you need baptism and communion to be saved? Or just that these help with your sanctification and growth but that someone who was denied these maybe because on an early death can still be saved. Predestination- No issue here, I hold to the five points of TULIP very strongly. Amillennialism- As of now I lean more towards premillennialism but I must admit the Amillennial does seem to make a lot more sense. We are commanded to make the world a better place here and now and if this works were a sinking ship that wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe I would understand Revelation better if I opened my mind ti this perspective. I’m curious though what do you think of the fact that the Bible says that there will be perilous times before the end comes? That seems hard to square with amillennialist views. If you have any book recommendations or if you’d be willing to explain this view in more detail or refer me to another video I’d greatly appreciate it. Covenant Theology- I’d say this makes a lot more sense then dispensationalism. The Bible clearly tells us that even the Jews were saved by grace and not by their own good works. The idea that it’s always been a covenant of grace that was simply extended over time until it included all nations makes a lot of sense, it’s the idea of a progressive covenant thats still the same covenant it’s just improving overtime. I don’t really like the idea of infant baptism as I think you should make a personal decision to get baptized when you know you are saved but the idea of it in how you explained it does make sense. In my church we do baby dedications which are basically like infant baptisms in the reformed tradition without the actual baptism. Ecumenical Creeds- As a Baptist I’m not actually familiar with the words of a lot of the creeds but based on what I have heard I take no issue with them. I think MacArthur is a good preacher for the most part but I wasn’t aware of the fact that he had so many heretical views and that is kind of disturbing. I don’t think you necessarily need to adhere to a creed to be saved, I’d say just truly accepting Jesus as lord and savior is what saved, but I think creeds are good and I don’t have an issue with them. I also don’t like the anti-intellectualism of many Baptists and the hyper literalism also seems like a big problem. A lot of atheists who are former baptists or former evangelicals have a hyper literalist / hyper evaluation view of scripture and I think that’s a serious issue that comes from the issues within Baptist theology.

When are you going to drop the discord server 🔥🔥

Thanks for the reminder of why I’m not a Presby. Dig the show tho

You should do a video on whether or not a churchgoers can go to a church where they don't agree with the main points of the denomination. For example, I am a Baptist. However, all of my local baptist churches are FAR gone (liberal). I actually like and appreciate my local calvinist church, however I can't get on board with the predestination. What do I do?

I'm in no way shape or form a Calvanist (coming from a Pentecostal and than Baptist/Non-Denominational background), but I'm currently attending a Baptist church where all of the leadership would consider themselves Reformed. This video is the clearest and simplest explanation of Calvanism I've ever heard and has helped me understand more about what they believe and some of the debates they have about other points of Calvanism like the Ecumenical Creeds. Thank you!

I am trying to figure out what tradition to be in, and I agree with most of what ive learnt about the Presbyterians, but i very much struggle with the idea of pedobaptism. What are y'all's recommendations?

What do you think of the united church. They are pretty big where I'm from. As I understand it they are a combination of several Methodist and Presbyterian churches, although I'm not a member myself.

doesn’t the 1689 promote spiritual presence? Also memorialism is something we see in modern evangelism rather than historical Baptist theology. But yea, I agree that Reformed Baptists are more Baptist than reformed.

I just realised you sound exactly like Whatifalthist

I’m on PS4 is there way I could join this server?

John MacArthur is not a Reformed Baptist. His church in non-denominational. He doesn't even prefer to call himself a Calvinist. Rather, he adheres to the "doctrines of grace" (or TULIP). Please do not think that he represents Reformed Baptists simply because he is a credo-Baptist and is also the most well-known "Calvinist." That he's a dispensationalist actually should give people pause, because we (Reformed Baptists) DO adhere to covenant theology. We ARE amillenialists (like me) and postmillenialists (like many). In the video, Redeemed Zoomer said that most people think the main difference between Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians is our view of the sacraments. The reason for that is because it IS the main difference. Also, Redeemed Zoomer should be careful when saying that Presbyterians believe in "baptismal regeneration." They don't. Lutherans do. Yes, it is viewed as a seal for infants and as a replacement of the practice of circumcision. To say that it "regenerates" or "saves" is a misunderstanding of what Presbyterians in general believe. It is a seal and signifier of grace but doesn't actually save ex opere operato. I happen to like the Presbyterian view of the sacraments, but that is the main difference. All the other letters in his SPACE acronym would not place Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians too far apart, if at all. It's just the S, bro. Also, Redeemed Zoomer, if you're going to talk about who is "truly Reformed," don't begin the video by saying that "Calvinist" and "Reformed" are pretty much synonymous. Not in this type of video. People already are confused about the difference... and there is one. We hold to the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Presbyterians hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith. If your church does not hold to either, you might be a Calvinist, but not be "truly Reformed."

Hm Interesting. I am looking for some anwers. What about Charismatic question? Can a truly Reformed be a Continuationist and for instance pray in tounges?

9:00 yeeeeey. Looks like i'm not your only Hungarian fan:)

15:25 hey so if someone can help me out with this it would be great. So I’ve recently started doing a deeper dive into the church and trying to find out what denomination I should go with ( coming from a non-denominational household) now while watching this video I thought that all that was being said was stuff that I believe up until the time stamp I left above 👆 I’ve never seen Mary as more then the women who gave birth to Jesus, is it a Hearsay to think this way? If so how should I change it? Thanks

Could you make a video on why you're not a presuppositionalist?

What’s your opinion on James White

Can you make an apologetics video for things like LGBT, abortion, etc.?

As a reformed Babtist I agree with you that we’re not by definition reformed but I do believe in three and a half of SPACE.

I agree, as a 1689 baptist i would say though the 2nd London Baptists split off from the reformed tradition unlike the general baptists, there are important differences to keep at the forefront, specifically what a 1689 Federalist baptist and a Presbyterian mean by “covenant of grace” mean two different things, as well as the Presbyterian and dutch reformed view of the children of believers being included in the covenant by their parents faith, whereas the 1689 federalist will align more with the augustinian and Lutheran view that regeneration is necessary for membership in the new covenant However, i would say for every reformed baptist church i’ve been to, it has held to the Presbyterian view of the Lords supper. Christ is Spiritually Present with us, and we are transcended before heaven Spiritually, which is why caution must be exercised as coming before God as His people with it carries both great hope as well as great condemnation depending on whether or not you’re living faithfully as a Repentant Christian in union with Christ. A bigger difference i would emphasize (as i’m currently attendin a pca church while overseas) is church government, where reformed baptists align with the dutch reformed in that padtors are members of their own churches, compared to the PCA which has their pastors as members of the Presbytery. As far as baptism as well, i hold that as a big difference, where Presbyterians equate circumcision and baptism as accomplishing the same thing, we do not. They’re related in the reformed baptist view, but not in the same way the reformed relate them. All that being said, I fully understand Presbyterians calling us simply “confessional baptists” and i understand the impulse in some 1689 baptists to be insulted, however, videos like this really do help to point out the reasons why Presbyterians reject the title “reformed baptist” and open up clearer lines of communication between us. As for shorthand between other denominations… “reformed baptist” is such a good shorthand i’m sorry but i will keep using it for now😂 love your channel

Did you hear about the Reformed Pastor who fell down a flight of stairs? He got up and said, “Well I’m glad I got that over with.”

What religion will get me closer in relationship with God

Why don’t you mention Swiss reformed?

Zoomer, St. Thomas certainly believed in unconditional election, as most of the Catholics schools do (Thomists, Augustinians, Scotists, Suarists, although they differ a little bit among themselves). Irresistible grace is tricky, since we (Catholics and Protestants) usually signify different things by the word grace. But yes, he did believe that actual grace, the transient motion passively received by the will that elicits it to produce a supernatural salutary or meritorious act, was intrinsically efficacious (there are some disputes on this question among the Thomists, those who follow Zumel’s interpretation of St. Thomas instead of Bañez’s have a slightly different belief, but they still affirm grace’s infallible efficacy). Nonetheless, St. Thomas DID NOT affirm any other points of TULIP.

Wait, what about voddie baucham?? What did he commit?

4:46 this is also true of the Calvinist view of baptism (sorry to pick on you, Zoomer, it isn't personal. But this comment didn't sit well with me because of the irony). Reformed on baptism: It actually saves!* *if the individual in question actually gets saved later by having faith... or rather, if they were already saved before time began because they were predestined to have faith. The Reformed view of baptism will require a huge amount of clever syllogisms to make any sense beyond "it's not symbolic when it's real, but most of the time it doesn't really count." And that's really not practically different than saying it's symbolic, since for many or even most of its recipients it doesn't save them at all. It's not a symbol for them because it doesn't symbolize anything; it's not a symbol for believers because it actually works on them. It's the same kind of twisted logic that makes Perserverence of the Saints work. They can have all the fruits of the spirit, correctly recite and publically affirm Christian doctrine - but oops! It's actually effervescent grace and they're really just common vessels, designed for God's wrath! Perseverence of the Saints is identical in its practical implications to the Wesleyan or Arminian view of apostasy, without any actual explanation, given its presuppositions. The baptists actually get this one right with their OSAS view (although I personally am split between siding with them or Arminius.) I'm not a baptist. I used to be Presbyterian, in the PCA, perhaps you would call me Presbapterian for that, but I think the practical implications of a hard view of PSA and predestination are dangerously off-center. The only way to make it work is to affirm contradictions and hand-wave away the problems. God wants to save everyone, but he only died for some of them, because he designed the rest of them for use as firewood for the sake of his glory. Again, it isn't personal - I've been deeply hurt by these ideas and I've received great healing coming out of them. Learning the real Biblical truth has set me free. It's been eye-opening and life-changing to realize that the bad feeling it alwqys gave me was actually just my good judgement, not rebellion against (an absolutely terrifying and arbitrary) God.

Sweet video! I’d love to see a video about how Classical Arminian theology is more reformed than John MacArthur’s theology (for example), as you say. 💯

Concerning John MacArthur, I am not his apologist. I am not dispensationalist; I am amillennial. However, I suspect MacArthur is more concerned with the idea that the virgin birth involved the creation of a god being, rather than the incarnation of the eternal Son of God. One issue he had in earlier years was that he held to incarnational sonship rather than eternal sonship...in other words, he believe the father-son relationship began when Christ became incarnate. Concerning the blood of Christ, I believe his point is that the substance of the blood and making contact with it in some way isn't what saves the person; it is the fact that Christ died a substitutionary death on the cross. In my opinion, the governance structure of the Presbyterians made it easier for "progressivism" and wokeness to capture the institution. I doubt if I'll ever be involved in an organization like that for this reason.

3:16 Not exactly. While the general view of the sacraments (specifically the bread and cup) within the Baptist Church has typically just been symbolic, plenty of Reformer Baptists do believe it is more than just that. So to say that we don’t is a little broad to say the least.

I’m Lutheran and I’m very surprised with what I’m hearing. It sounds quite similar to what I believe.

as a Presbyterian do you believe baptism saves?

Is this a bedrock or java server?

Is Methodism/Wesleyianism considered reformed?

So I'm curious, I consider myself a reformed presbyterian, but I've been wondering about the line "Baptism saves", does that mean that we are not saved by faith alone? In which case how do you explain the thief on the cross being saved?

I think we should stop calling them reformed baptist instead call them particular baptist!

So basically if I agree with 3 of the SPACE. So does that make me a. Reformed Baptist

What would you say of the position that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are separate covenants that have both always been there. That the New Covenant is redemptive in nature, while the Old Covenant is prophetic and educational in nature: before the New Covenant was made plain by the ministry of Christ, it foretold, in some sense, the New Covenant, faith in that prophecy was the point of access to the New Covenant for those under the Old who could not see the New Covenant clearly. It also provides a framework for the New Covenant to be explained and preached. The Old Covenant is communal in nature, the New is individual. The promises in scripture apply both temporally to the Jews and eternally to the Church and to the believer. Romans 2 explains how the two interact, both reward and punishment are apportioned "first to the Jew, then to the Gentile".

I am sort of finding myself in confusion. I agree that we are in the kingdom of God right now, but I also believe that there is at least a semi-literal millennium, even though I think of myself as a Presbyterian, yet to come. My basis for this is that it says in the ESV Bible, Revelation 20:2-3 that " And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him so that he might not deceive the nations any longer until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be released for a little while." But Paul mentions Satan having put a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7), which most biblical scholars believe is some kind of spiritual or mental temptation. But if Satan was bound and unable to deceive anymore when Jesus died and was resurrected, how can he afflict Paul? Also, Amillennialism puts the Tribulation and Millenial kingdom into the same period, but the two are completely different in nature. The literal approach also seems better in some verses because of 2 reasons. First, it will allow allegorical meaning when it is apparent. Second, all allegorical meanings are based on literal meanings. This doesn't mean that I am a Dispensationalist, because I do think Israel had its chance, and half of Revelation is symbolic, not literal. I am open to taking suggestions on why this is wrong or right from the Redeemed Zoomer and other fellow believers. To the glory and praise of God our Father!

It would be best if you did a historical study on the term "reformed". When did reformed Christians begin to be called reformed? Historically, what does the term reformed even mean? you see, one can come up with a definition of reformed that leaves Presbyterians out. PCUSA is not reformed because it's not called reformed. Only Dutch reformed is really reformed.

Whenever the topic of the last supper comes up, I just simply ask how can we eat slavery.

I guess you weren't aware that Brown University was founded as a Baptist institution?

Hey bro what's your opinion on the scholarly opinion of the 7 authentic Paul epistles and the remaining being pseudopaul written by later church.

As a Baptist my church don’t consider ourselves reformed, we do share some things with the reformed people like the view of predestination and the idea that you can’t loose your faith (unless you willfully abandon the faith, but like you falling to temptations and looking at naked women online won’t result in you needing to be saved again), we absolutely do not believe in pedobaptism or baptism saves.

Lol I think the people complaining about the plots in the midst of your talk is hilarious.

This is wrong for one central reason: Zwingli has pretty much always been called Reformed. The term "Reformed" has pretty much always been used to include Zwingli. And yet, Zwingli (famously) did not believe in any presence whatsoever in the Lord's Supper. So, maybe you want to say that Zwingli was not Reformed, but you are going against pretty much everything that the term Reformed means historically.

Still yet to visit Bible town…

yo Zoomer you should make shirts!

"30.7. 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." 1689 Confession

At least you're up front about your biases, being the self-appointed gate keeper of Reformed Theology. Luckily, us Reformed Baptists have historical tradition to stand on. In sum, to be Reformed is to: - Affirm and promote a profoundly high view of the supremacy and sovereignty of God in all things and sees God as actively involved in His creation, governing and overseeing all the affairs of men. cf. Psalm 115:3; Job 34:14-15; 37:6-13; Daniel 4:35. - Affirm the utter dependence of sinful man, upon God, in all things, especially concerning salvation. - Affirm the Doctrines of Grace (commonly referred to as Calvinism), which display God as the author of salvation from beginning to end. The acrostic TULIP (which is a summation of the Canons of Dort) is the most familiar way of delineating the doctrines of Grace. TULIP is made up of 5 points, which are: * T - Total Depravity * U - Unconditional Election * L - Limited Atonement * I - Irresistible Grace * P - Perseverance, and Preservation, of the Saints - Creedal - To affirm the great creeds of the historic, orthodox church. The Apostles' Creed The Nicene Creed The Definition of Chalcedon - Confessional - To affirm one, or more, of the great confessions of the historic orthodox church. * The Westminster Standards - The Westminster Confession of Faith - The Westminster Longer Catechism - The Westminster Shorter Catechism * Reformed Baptist Standards - 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith - The Baptist Catechism - Orthodox Catechism * The Three Forms of Unity - The Belgic Confession of Faith - The Heidelberg Catechism - The Canons of Dordrecht -The Savoy Declaration - Covenantal - To affirm the great covenants of Scripture and see those covenants as the means by which God interacts with and accomplishes His purposes in His creation, with mankind. The Scriptures contain numerous examples of God "covenanting" with man, establishing and ordaining a variety of covenants. - A high view of Scripture, in it's necessity, infallibility, sufficiency and internal consistency, and our dependence upon it to learn what God has revealed about Himself, His commands, and His way of salvation. - A high view of the church in preaching (the exposition and application of God's Word), the ordinances, discipline, prayer, worship (Regulative Principal), fellowship, and evangelism, all encompassed in the keeping of the Christian Sabbath, commonly called the Lord's Day. - A distinctly Biblical, Christian worldview that permeates all of life, a life lived in the world, but at the same time, a life not oriented to the world and it's standards, but oriented to God's Word

If Non-denominationals are baptists with a lower case b, then Baptists are reformed with a lower case r.

Love this so much more than TULIP, though I tend to agree with you on all of these except the P and some of the C. I am what parts of the bible you are referring to that say we cannot fall away from the faith, I know of plenty that say nothing external can remove us and that God won't if we continue to trust him

I think the preaching elder/pastor in my church(which is reformed baptist) holds to like four and a half, having like a Presbapterian view of the spiritual presence during the sacraments

As a self-proclaimed Reformed Baptist, I would uphold 4 of the 5 points of your SPACE acronym, I would not agree with Spiritual Presence due to how for the most part I follow the 1689 Baptist tradition. I do uphold Covenant Theology, though my view of infant baptism is definitely different from yours. It surprises me how many self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists just uphold Predestination, and not Amillennialism, Covenant Theology and the Ecumenical Creeds. (I also uphold a infralapsarian view of Predestination for context) I love your videos, and have enjoyed playing on the Minecraft server. Keep up the great work!

I don't think that covenant theology being the only difference means that the church is not reformed. I am reformed Baptist and this is the only theological difference in which we differ from reformed Presbyterian. I genuinely am curious how this does not make us reformed.

Dude, I don't see how you can reason that because the law had babies circumcised that baptism would require babies as well. Even though circumcision was made null and unnecessary according to paul, and never is baptizing a baby referenced. In what way are these connected. This logic could say baby having communion. I didn't hear any biblical coorelation.

Is that a bedrock server? If so, are there openings?

I grew up southern Baptist

15:37 gonna bring that up everytime to shut his worshipers up

Do you have any opinions on Pastor Joel Webbon and Right Response Ministries, or Jeff Derbin and James White at Apologia Church?

John Wesley wrote a great piece on this. He said “Calvinists, who deny that salvation can ever be lost, reason on the subject in a marvelous way. They tell us that no virgin’s lamp can go out; no promising harvest be choked with thorns; no branch in Christ can ever be cut off for lack of fruitfulness; no pardon can ever be forfeited, and no name blotted out of God’s book of life! They insist that no salt can ever lose its savor; nobody can ever “receive the grace of God in vain”; “bury his talents”; “neglect such a great salvation”; … “look back” after putting his hand to the gospel plow. Nobody can “grieve the Spirit” till He is “quenched,” and strives no more, nor “deny the Lord that bought them”; nor “bring upon themselves swift destruction.” And nobody, or body of believers, can ever get so lukewarm that Jesus will spew them out of His mouth. They use reams of paper to argue that if one ever got lost he was never found. John 17:12; that if one falls, he never stood. Rom. 11:16-22 and Heb. 6:4-6; if one was ever “cast forth,” he was never in, and “if one ever withered,” he was never green. John 15:1-6; and that “if any man draws back,” it proves that he never had anything to draw back from. Heb. 10:38,39; that if one ever “falls away into spiritual darkness,” he was never enlightened. In short: If you get it, you can’t lose it; and if you lose it you never had it… May God save us from accepting a doctrine that must be defended by such fallacious reasoning!” ~ John Wesley

I thought Reformed was CCC - Calvinist, Coventantal and Confessional. Reformed Baptist churches do hold to all three of those.....

Huh, funny. I've always used "reformed baptist" as a way to say "liberal baptist", as opposed to "conversavtive baptists". Guess I have been using the term wrong lol

Yall are the ones that reformed everything except actually baptizing and still do that the catholic way.

Reformed baptist here and I hold to all five points of SPACE, yet I disagree with Presbyterians on infant baptism.

You belive Jonh Macarthur is not a true cristian?