Overview of Reformed Baptist History

Here is a basic overview of the history of Reformed Baptists from 33ad until the 1600's.

Semper Reformanda!

[johnnycharles]

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.

[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

[Maddog_Mark]

I really appreciate the reformed rookie channel

[benjamingallows]

Really appreciating this content. Thanks brother.

[covenantcitychurchmn]

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

[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.

[papist]

Great summary of the history of Reformed Baptists.

[ratnaongole]

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

[dunlapmichaell]

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

[WHATEVERYOUD]

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. :)

[RedeemedRogueMolecules]

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

[susiequsie]

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😊

[mmtoss]

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

[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 YouTube videos “The New Covenant” by Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

[lindygrace]

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

[servusbellator]

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