Can Baptists Be Truly Reformed?

For the final article in this short series on Reformed theology, I want to address what may be the elephant in the room for some: Can Baptists be truly Reformed? Isn’t the label Reformed reserved for Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed churches, or other paedobaptist traditions?

I want to argue succinctly that not only can Baptists be Reformed, but that Reformed Baptists did not arise outside the Reformed tradition; they arose within it. Reformed Baptists are not Reformed by adoption; they are Reformed by origin. The 1689 Baptists came from the Reformed stream of the Reformation. To see this clearly, we need a brief historical overview.

Two Baptist Origins

Historically, Baptists have two distinct origins, and confusing them is what creates much of the modern misunderstanding.

• General Baptists emerged first in the early 1600s (c. 1609–1612) out of English Separatism and held Arminian theology. Figures such as John Smyth and Thomas Helwys represent this stream.

• Particular Baptists arose shortly after, in the 1630s–1640s, from within English Puritan, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches, and held Calvinistic theology.

  
  

These were contemporaneous movements, not sequential developments of the same tradition. They shared the name Baptist and the practice of believer’s baptism (credobaptism), but they differed fundamentally from the start in soteriology and covenant theology.

Reformed Baptists and the 1689 Confession

Having emerged from within English Puritanism and the Westminster-era Reformed churches, Reformed Baptists were, from their inception, Calvinistic, Confessional, Covenantal, and thoroughly Reformed in worship and doctrine. The men who wrote the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith were not theological outsiders. They were deeply rooted in the Reformed tradition.

In fact, they took the Westminster Confession (and the Savoy Declaration) and revised it only where they believed Scripture required—primarily on baptism, church membership, and church polity. This was not a rejection of Reformed theology, but an intra-Reformed revision, carried out according to the same reformational principle of submission to Scripture.

Baptists in North America

Modern Baptist life includes multiple streams, but historically, in North America—both in the United States and Canada—Baptists were initially predominantly Particular Baptist. Major and historic Baptist bodies, such as the American Baptist Churches USA and the Southern Baptist Convention, were largely Calvinistic in origin.

Over time, however, many of these groups moved away from their Reformed roots. Revivalism, pragmatic evangelism, charismatic influence, dispensationalism, and, in some cases, theological liberalism contributed to this shift. As a result, many Baptist denominations today represent a mixture of Particular and General Baptist theology, often leaning more toward the latter.

The Paedobaptist Objection

A more technical objection often comes from paedobaptist Reformed traditions, which deny the Reformed label to Baptists because we reject infant baptism. But Reformed Baptists are not rejecting covenant theology; they are seeking to reform it in light of the fulfillment of the New Covenant in Christ.

We affirm:

• The covenantal structure of Scripture.

• One people of God saved by grace through faith.

• The continuity of redemptive history.

  
  

Our disagreement with paedobaptism is not a rejection of covenant theology itself, but a different conclusion about covenant membership and covenant administration under the New Covenant. Paedobaptism is a conclusion drawn from a particular covenantal reading; it is not the definition of covenant theology. Reformed Baptists affirm covenant theology fully while disagreeing on covenant signs and membership—not on covenant structure or substance. This places us squarely within an intra-Reformed debate, not outside the Reformed tradition.

Not the Same as Arminianism

This is fundamentally different from the disagreement with Arminianism. Arminian theology departs from Reformed theology at the level of first principles—challenging the nature of grace, the condition of the human will, the ground of election, and the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. The Reformed Baptist–Presbyterian debate concerns conclusions within a shared system; the Reformed–Arminian debate concerns the system itself.

Conclusion

There is no contradiction between being Baptist and being Reformed. Conversations about baptism and church membership are important and deeply shape the life of the church, but they do not sever Reformed Baptists from the Reformed tradition.

So, stay Christian.

Stay Reformed.

Stay Baptist.

And let us all strive together to grow in maturity and in the knowledge of the truth, until we attain unity in Christ.

Nino Marques