Hi, I'm Jim Butler from the Free Grace Baptist Church here in Chilliwack, British Columbia. I'm joined with two of our Confessing the Faith Conference 2026. Two of the speakers, Pastor David Charles from the Providence Reformed Baptist Church in Toledo, Ohio, and Pastor and Dr. Richard Barcelos from Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Palmdale, California.
There are two of the three speakers for our conference this weekend. The third is Dr. Jim Renahan, the president of the International Reformed Baptist Seminary. So, it's a pleasure for us to deal with some of these Ask FGBC questions.
I've got a couple of pros with me, so I'm very encouraged by that. And we'll go ahead and start in the category Confessional Identity and Reformed Baptist History. So, the first question is,
Questions and Answers
what distinguishes Reformed Baptists from Anabaptists historically? Do they share the same roots? And that's directed first to Pastor Charles. An expert.
An expert. Well, you know, of course, in recent memory, we've had a book published along these lines by Matthew Bingham. And of course, our own Dr. Rinnehan, likewise, has been very helpful in distinguishing those two groups.
The
Distinct Origins of Particular Baptists
particular Baptist and the Anabaptist They have common roots in the Christian religion. They're both reading the Bible. They're both reading the Bible, but it's not like the Baptists are a later, improved version of Anabaptists. The Particular Baptists have a completely different origin, arising more out of the English Reformation, Congregationalism specifically.
So the early Particular Baptists labor it hard, going back to the first line of the Baptist confession of faith, to distinguish themselves from— That's right. It's on the title page. Right, exactly. So, if we're to listen to their own witness and then the witness of others during that time, then, of course, our own better historians, there's no relationship.
And that shows up not just simply historically, but actually how those two groups developed and their relationship, there's some similarities, because like Rich said, they're both reading the Bible with a non-papist view. But that doesn't mean that they have a common origin. Of course not. Good.
Rich, anything to add? I think I spoke to at least one, if not two, men who have read all the extant existing literature from the 17th century, what we would call the Particular Baptists, and there's
Primary Sources and the Historical Record
no known connection in the writings to any of the Anabaptist writings. Even though you can go on the internet and do a search and find out that Particular Baptists find their roots with the Mennonites, not the Mennonites, Anabaptists. And it keeps cropping up on Twitter through a particular person especially. But I don't think it's a legitimate thesis.
Okay. We certainly can be understanding, we're living in a good time where real history is being done. We have men like Dr. Renahan and Bingham and others who are going back, as you said, they're going to actually going back to the history rather than repeating something that's been repeated, repeated and left unchallenged.
And it just becomes a very convenient way to talk about the history, although it ends up being unfortunately very ill-informed. Yeah, a lot of either anachronistic interpretation of old things, imposing current views on ancient literature, or just depending on secondary literature, or tertiary literature, yeah, or whatever, a fourth. Somebody said what somebody else said, what somebody else said, but the first person that said it didn't prove it from the actual writings of those people. So, you know, that's a very sloppy way to do historical work.
And Dr. Renahan and Dr. Richard Muller and others have really helped, I think, our people. you know, I've actually met people who identify as Anabaptists, and there's some of their instinct. They're wrong, but I understand they want to so distinguish themselves from the medieval papacy.
And so, the notion that there is this traceable Yeah. Back to the medieval church is so appalling to them. Yeah. And they think that Anabaptism...
Jumped over. Somehow... Went all the way back. Paul, Jesus, and the Apostles.
Yeah. Right. Yeah. And it's the only faithful expression of the New Testament or something like that.
And, you know, once again, this is where we live in a very good time where others, not just in terms of Anabaptist Baptist, but that are helping us to think in a good way, more Catholic. small c. And they're helping us to go, I think, Rich, you were there in Toledo and you preached some lectures or gave some lectures where the Reformation didn't change everything. And that's a very solitary way for us to think about our religion and who we are as Protestants and as Baptists. Doesn't
Congregationalist Roots and Covenant Ecclesiology
Bingham argue from the primary source documents that the particular, what became particular Baptists. They were actually pedobaptists. Congregationalists. Yes, pedobaptist congregationalists.
And it was their view of the covenants and ecclesiology that drove them to confessing disciples, baptism alone. They didn't go back to the Anabaptists. It was within that kind of a context. That's what part of his argument is.
Is that right? Yeah. I can't remember when it was, we were, once we were all, all three of us were in Boston with the Presbyterian historian, Chad Van Bitten. So he was either there when he was at Fargo, but he was making the point too, that there, there was a desire and an enterprise Both with, you know, going back to Westminster and moving forward, they're all kind of wanting a pure church.
Yeah, right. And of course, it was the
Believers' Membership and the Baptismal Threshold
particular Baptist in that same stream that came to the realization, to accomplish that, you have to begin at the very threshold of the church in the baptismal waters. Yeah, as I recall, a believer's membership. Yeah. And that's where outsiders looking in say, well, that's what the Anabaptists were doing, a believer's membership.
So therefore, he must have gotten that from them. But you know, even there, you know, I think he perhaps even the Anabaptists have not been treated well by some of the historians because they weren't really a monolithic group either. Oh, no. They're all over the board.
So they, you know, they're entitled to their own history. And the
Anabaptists Were Not Monolithic
Anabaptist to a man didn't hold to the heretical celestial flesh view of the incarnation, right? Right. And I think there are some Anabaptists that dispense with the sacraments altogether. So, I mean, again, they don't really have this.
Yeah, whenever you say the Anabaptists, I'd say anabaptistic or something. Anabaptistic might be more accurate. Or anabaptistical. Yes.
And so we would say the particular Baptists were anti-antibaptistical. Yes. Yeah. All right.
Good.