Baptist vs. Reformed Beliefs

Welcome, dear friend. If you are reading this, it is likely because you have a heart that is alive and curious. You are asking questions about faith, tradition, and the beliefs of your brothers and sisters in Christ. This is a beautiful and courageous thing. These questions are not a sign of doubt, but of a faith that wants to grow deeper, to love God not only with all your heart and soul but also with all your mind.

In this journey together, we will be exploring the deeply held convictions of two of the great families within Protestant Christianity: the Baptist and the Reformed traditions. This is not a battle to be won or a debate to be scored. It is a family conversation. We will handle these precious truths with the gentleness and respect that befits followers of our one Lord, Jesus Christ. We know that these topics can sometimes be a source of tension or even pain, and our goal is to bring light, not heat; understanding, not division.

We will begin by walking back in time to discover our shared history in the great stream of the Protestant Reformation. Then, we will carefully unpack the key terms that can sometimes cause confusion. From there, we will lovingly explore the major areas where these traditions diverge—on salvation, baptism, the Bible’s grand story, the Lord’s Supper, and how the church is led. But just as importantly, we will joyfully celebrate the powerful unity we share in the core truths of the gospel. Finally, we will look at how our family conversation appears from the outside by considering the Catholic Church’s stance, and we will conclude with some gentle thoughts on how we can live together in love, honoring our convictions while cherishing our unity in Christ. Let us begin this journey with open hearts and a prayer for wisdom.

Where Did We Come From? The Shared Roots of the Baptist and Reformed Traditions

To understand the relationship between the Baptist and Reformed traditions, we must begin our story in the same place: the monumental movement of God’s Spirit in 16th-century Europe known as the Protestant Reformation. Both traditions are children of this great spiritual renewal, sharing a common ancestor and a foundational commitment to the core principles that reshaped the Christian world.¹ They stand together in rejecting the ultimate authority of the Pope and affirming that Scripture alone (

Sola Scriptura) is our final guide for faith and life, and that a person is made right with God not by works, but by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.¹ This shared starting point is the bedrock of our family connection.

The Reformed tradition, as a distinct stream, traces its lineage to reformers like Huldrych Zwingli in Zurich and, most famously, John Calvin in Geneva.³ These leaders sought a thorough, comprehensive reformation of the church’s entire life, worship, and doctrine, all based on the Word of God. This powerful vision for a church “reformed according to the Word of God” spread with incredible speed across the continent. It took root in Scotland, where under the leadership of John Knox it became the Presbyterian and in the Netherlands, where it became the Dutch Reformed Church.³ These churches, while retaining some continuity with the historic aimed to purify it from top to bottom.

The Baptist tradition emerged from a slightly different soil, primarily from the English Separatist movement a few decades later.⁷ These were men and women who felt that the Church of England, despite having broken from Rome, had not gone far enough in its reforms. Passionate leaders like John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were driven by a conviction to build churches based

only on the clear commands and examples they found in the New Testament.⁹ This zealous commitment to Scripture led them to conclusions that were radical and even dangerous in their day.

They concluded that the church should be a voluntary community of believers only. Membership wasn’t something you were born into; it was something you entered through a personal, conscious profession of faith in Jesus Christ. The outward sign of this inner reality was believer’s baptism, or what we call credobaptism.⁷ This meant rejecting the centuries-old practice of infant baptism. They became fierce champions for religious liberty and the separation of church and state, arguing that no king or government had the right to compel a person’s conscience in matters of faith.⁷

From its very beginning, But the Baptist family was not uniform. A crucial division appeared almost immediately between two groups. The “General Baptists” believed that Christ’s death provided a “general” atonement, making salvation possible for all people who would choose to believe. Their view of salvation was more aligned with the teachings of Jacobus Arminius.¹ In contrast, the “Particular Baptists” held to the doctrine of “particular” atonement—the belief that Christ’s death was specifically intended to save a particular people, the elect. Their view of salvation was Calvinistic.¹ This early distinction is absolutely vital for understanding the complex relationship between Baptists and the Reformed tradition today.

The key to understanding this historical divergence lies in the scope of the reformation each group pursued. The mainline Reformers like Calvin sought to reform the existing retaining practices like infant baptism which they saw as having continuity with God’s covenant people in the Old Testament. The early Baptists, on the other hand, represent a more “radical” application of the principle of Sola Scriptura to the very nature of the church itself. Their reasoning was simple and powerful: if a practice like infant baptism was not explicitly commanded or clearly demonstrated in the New Testament, it should be set aside.⁷ This was not a rejection of the Reformation’s core truths, but an attempt to follow them to what these believers saw as their necessary and biblical conclusion. This helps us see the Baptist movement not as a strange offshoot, but as a different and more thorough expression of the very same reforming impulse that birthed the Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed churches.

What Do We Mean by ‘Reformed’ and ‘Baptist’ Today?

One of the biggest challenges in this family conversation is that we often use the same words to mean different things. Before we can understand our agreements and disagreements, we must gently clarify our terms. The words “Reformed” and “Baptist” can carry several layers of meaning, and understanding them is the first step toward true fellowship.¹⁴

The term “Reformed” is used in at least three distinct ways, and this can cause major confusion.

1. Broadly (The Five Solas): In its most general sense, “Reformed” can refer to any Protestant Christian or church that stands in the stream of the 16th-century Reformation and holds to its foundational principles: Scripture alone, grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone, and to the glory of God alone. In this broad sense, nearly all Baptists are “reformed”.¹
2. Specifically (Calvinist Soteriology): More commonly, especially in popular discussions today, “Reformed” is used as shorthand for a specific view of salvation known as Calvinism. This view emphasizes God’s total sovereignty in saving sinners and is often summarized by the acronym TULIP, which we will explore later. Many Baptists hold this view of salvation.¹⁴
3. Strictly (Confessional and Sacramental): In its most precise, historical sense, “Reformed” refers to those churches that not only embrace Calvinist soteriology but also subscribe to the great Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries (like the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Heidelberg Catechism), practice infant baptism (paedobaptism), and have a connectional form of church government (Presbyterianism).¹⁵ This definition typically includes Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, and other continental Reformed denominations.

Likewise, the term “Baptist” is not a single, monolithic category. While united by a commitment to believer’s baptism, Baptists have historically been divided by their view of salvation. The two main streams flowing from their 17th-century origins are:

• General Baptists: This group, which includes many modern evangelical and Southern Baptist churches, tends toward an Arminian understanding of salvation. They emphasize that salvation is offered to all, and a person’s free-will choice to accept Christ is a crucial part of the process.¹
• Particular Baptists (or Reformed Baptists): This group is thoroughly Calvinistic in its understanding of salvation, affirming the absolute sovereignty of God in grace.¹² They express their beliefs in historic confessions like the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, which was intentionally modeled after the Presbyterian Westminster Confession to show their substantial agreement on most doctrines.¹⁶

This leads us to a crucial point of clarity: the “Reformed Baptist.” A Reformed Baptist often has far more in common theologically with a Presbyterian than with a General Baptist, especially on the all-important doctrine of how a person is saved.¹⁰ This has led some to a powerful conclusion: Reformed Baptists are not primarily a species of the genus “Baptist,” but rather a species of the genus “Reformed.” They are not a branch of the Baptist tree; they are a branch of the Reformed tree that happens to hold a Baptist view of the church and baptism.²³ Grasping this helps untangle much of the confusion and allows us to see the landscape more clearly.

To help keep these streams distinct in our minds, the following table provides a simple, at-a-glance comparison of the main positions. It can serve as a helpful reference as we dive deeper into each of these areas.

How Is a Person Saved? The Great Debate Over God’s Grace

At the very heart of the Christian faith is the question: how is a sinner saved? While both the Baptist and Reformed traditions joyfully affirm that salvation is a gift of God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, they have historically differed on the precise nature of that grace. The discussion centers on a powerful question: is salvation the work of God alone, or does it involve a cooperative effort between God and the free will of man?

The first view, known as monergism (from Greek words meaning “one work”), teaches that God is the sole, sovereign author of our salvation from beginning to end.¹⁶ This is the classic position of the Reformed tradition, held passionately by both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists. The second view, known as

synergism (meaning “working together”), teaches that while God’s grace is necessary, the individual’s free choice to accept that grace is also a decisive factor.¹⁶ This view is characteristic of General Baptists and the broader Arminian tradition.

The monergistic, or Calvinistic, view of salvation is often summarized by the five-point acronym TULIP. It is important to remember that these five points are not the whole of Reformed theology, but a specific response to the Arminian controversy of the 17th century.²⁴ They are best understood not as cold, abstract doctrines, but as five petals of a single flower, each describing a different facet of God’s amazing grace.²⁵ Let’s look at them with a pastoral heart.

• T – Total Depravity: This doctrine does not mean that every person is as outwardly evil as they could possibly be. Rather, it means that sin has affected and corrupted every part of our being—our minds, our wills, our emotions, our desires.²⁴ The Bible’s diagnosis is not that we are merely sick and in need of a little help; it is that we are spiritually “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). A dead person cannot choose to make themselves alive. This truth leads not to despair, but to powerful humility, for it shows us that we can contribute nothing to our own rescue.
• U – Unconditional Election: If we are dead in sin and unable to choose God, then how is anyone saved? The Reformed answer is that, before the foundation of the world, God in His sovereign love and mercy chose to save a people for Himself.²⁴ This choice was not based on anything He foresaw in them—not their works, not their merits, not even their future faith. It was based entirely on “the kind intention of His will” (Ephesians 1:5). This truth brings incredible security and wonder. We are loved not because we were lovely, but simply because He chose to love us.
• L – Limited Atonement (or Definite Atonement): This is perhaps the most misunderstood point. It does not limit the power or value of Christ’s death. The term “Definite Atonement” is often preferred because it better captures the meaning: Christ’s death on the cross was not a mere possibility, but a definite, perfect, and successful accomplishment.²⁴ It did not just make salvation 

  possible for all, but it actually secured the salvation of all those whom the Father had chosen—His sheep, His elect. The cross was not a hopeful attempt; it was a triumphant victory.

• I – Irresistible Grace (or Effectual Grace): This doctrine speaks to the power of God’s call. While people can and do resist the external call of the gospel, when the Holy Spirit works inwardly on the heart of one of the elect, that call is always effective.²⁴ God does not force us against our will; rather, He sovereignly changes our will so that we willingly and joyfully run to Christ. He gives us a new heart and a new spirit, turning our rebellion into repentance and our unbelief into faith.
• P – Perseverance of the Saints: This final point is a deep well of comfort and assurance. It teaches that those whom God has truly saved, He will also keep until the very end.²⁴ Our salvation does not depend on our ability to hold on to God, but on His mighty power to hold on to us. “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6). No one can snatch His sheep out of His hand.

In contrast, the synergistic or Arminian view, more common in General Baptist churches, presents a different picture. It affirms that Christ’s death was for every single person without exception, making salvation available to all. The final, determining factor, But is the individual’s free decision to accept or reject this offer of grace.¹⁶

This reveals a fascinating and complex relationship. On the crucial doctrine of salvation, Reformed (Presbyterian) and Reformed Baptist believers stand shoulder-to-shoulder, united in a monergistic understanding of God’s sovereign grace. They are in agreement on TULIP. Meanwhile, General Baptists stand apart, holding to a synergistic view. Yet, as we will see, on the equally important doctrine of baptism, the tables turn. Reformed Baptists and General Baptists stand together in their practice of believer’s baptism, while Presbyterians stand apart with infant baptism. This creates a theological triangle, not a simple two-sided conflict. It demonstrates that one cannot make simple statements like “Baptists believe X” without first asking, “Which Baptists?” This complex dynamic is essential to understanding the full picture of this family relationship.

Why Is Baptism So Important, and Why Do We Disagree On It?

There is perhaps no more visible or emotionally charged difference between the Baptist and Reformed traditions than the practice of baptism. Both traditions hold this ordinance in the highest regard, viewing it as a direct command from our Lord Jesus Christ to be practiced by the church until He returns.²⁸ Yet, they come to profoundly different conclusions about

who should be baptized and what the act signifies. This disagreement is not over a trivial matter; it touches the very heart of how we understand God’s covenant, His people, and the nature of the church itself.

The classic Reformed position, held by Presbyterians and others, is known as paedobaptism (from Greek words meaning “child baptism”).³⁰ The argument for baptizing the infant children of believers flows directly from a framework called Covenant Theology.³⁰ This view sees a fundamental continuity between God’s people in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God made a covenant with Abraham, promising to be a God to him and to his children after him (Genesis 17:7). The sign of this covenant relationship was circumcision, which was applied to Abraham and his infant sons.

Reformed theology argues that this one “Covenant of Grace” continues into the New Testament era. Baptism is now the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision.³⁴ Therefore, just as the infant sons of believers were circumcised in the Old Testament, the infant sons

and daughters of believers should be baptized in the New. Baptism marks them as members of the visible covenant community, places them under the care and instruction of the and calls them to one day embrace by personal faith the promises that were sealed to them as children.³³ It is a sign of God’s promise to them, not a testimony of their faith.

The Baptist position, known as credobaptism (“believer’s baptism”), arises from a different understanding of the church and the New Covenant.³⁰ The core conviction is that the New Testament church is a regenerate community, meaning it should be composed only of those who have been born again and can give a credible testimony of their personal faith in Christ.¹

From this starting point, baptism is understood as the powerful outward symbol of a prior inward reality. It is a believer’s public identification with Jesus in His death, burial, and resurrection.¹³ It is a personal testimony to repentance and faith. Since an infant cannot repent, believe, or make a personal profession of faith, Baptists conclude that infants are not the proper subjects for baptism.³⁴ The command is to “make disciples…baptizing them,” which implies that discipleship (faith and repentance) comes first.

This difference is also reflected in the language used. The Reformed tradition comfortably uses the term sacrament, which implies that baptism is not only a symbol but also a “sign and seal” of God’s covenant promises and a means by which He conveys grace to His people.⁶ Baptists have historically preferred the term

ordinance, which emphasizes that it is an act ordained or commanded by Christ and is primarily a symbolic and commemorative act, not in itself a channel of saving grace.⁶

It becomes clear that the debate over baptism is really just the visible symptom of a much deeper theological divergence. The disagreement is not fundamentally about water, but about covenants. A Presbyterian baptizes their baby not out of mere tradition, but because their understanding of Covenant Theology logically requires it. A Baptist, with equal conviction, baptizes only believers because their understanding of a regenerate church and the New Covenant logically demands it.⁶ Each practice is the consistent outflow of a deeply held, internally coherent theological system. This distinction has powerful real-world consequences, as seen in the painful experiences of those from a Reformed background who move to a Baptist church and are told their infant baptism is not valid and that they must be “re-baptized” as a believer to become a member.⁴¹ Understanding the deep theological roots of this practice can help foster patience and empathy, even when the practical outcomes are difficult.

How Does Our View of the Bible’s Story Shape Our Beliefs?

To truly grasp why Baptists and Reformed believers arrive at different conclusions on issues like baptism, we must look at the “operating system” running in the background of their theology. Every Christian reads the Bible through a certain framework, a way of connecting the dots to see the grand, unfolding story of God’s redemption. The two dominant frameworks in this conversation are Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Covenant Theology is the historic framework of the Reformed tradition, including Presbyterians and many Reformed Baptists.⁴² Its central theme is

continuity. It sees the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, as the story of God relating to His people through covenants. Although there are many individual biblical covenants (with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), they are all seen as different administrations of one overarching Covenant of Grace, which God made with humanity after the fall of Adam.⁴³

In this view, there is one people of God throughout history. The Church is not a brand-new entity that began at Pentecost; it is the “New Israel,” the continuation and fulfillment of the people of God from the Old Testament.⁴² This strong emphasis on continuity is the engine that drives the argument for infant baptism. If the people of God are essentially one across the testaments, and if the children of believers were included in the covenant community in the Old Testament (receiving the sign of circumcision), then it follows that children of believers should also be included in the covenant community in the New Testament (receiving the sign of baptism).

Dispensationalism, a more recent framework, is much more common in the broader Baptist and evangelical world.¹⁶ Its central theme is

discontinuity. It sees God’s plan unfolding through a series of distinct eras or “dispensations,” in which God governs humanity according to a different set of rules.⁴²

The most crucial distinction in this system is between Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism teaches that Israel and the Church are two separate peoples of God, with distinct promises and distinct destinies.²⁰ The promises of land and a physical kingdom made to national Israel in the Old Testament are still awaiting a future, literal fulfillment. The Church is a separate “mystery” program that began at Pentecost and will be completed when Christ returns to rapture His people before fulfilling His promises to Israel. This sharp distinction explains why most Baptists reject infant baptism. If the Church is a completely different entity from Israel, then the sign given to national Israel (circumcision) has no bearing on the sign given to the Church (believer’s baptism).

Many Reformed Baptists occupy a middle ground, often called New Covenant Theology or a Baptist form of Covenant Theology. They share the Reformed emphasis on the covenants as the backbone of Scripture but maintain a Baptist distinction between the nature of the Old and New Covenants, seeing the New Covenant community as exclusively regenerate.²²

The great 19th-century theologian B. B. Warfield described Covenant Theology as the “architectonic principle” of the Reformed faith.¹⁸ This is a powerful and illuminating concept. An architectonic principle is the foundational, load-bearing structure upon which an entire building is constructed. So it is with these theological frameworks. One’s view of the covenants is not just one belief among many; it is the master key that determines how one understands baptism, the nature of the the meaning of the sacraments, and the events of the end times. It is the principle that organizes all the other doctrines into a coherent system. Once we grasp this, we can finally see how all the seemingly separate points of disagreement between the Baptist and Reformed traditions are actually deeply and logically interconnected.

What Is Happening When We Take the Lord’s Supper?

When believers gather around the Lord’s Table, it is one of the most sacred and intimate moments in the life of the church. Both Baptist and Reformed traditions cherish this meal, which was commanded by Jesus Himself, as a central act of worship to be continued until He comes again.³⁹ Yet, as with baptism, they hold different understandings of what is spiritually taking place when we partake of the bread and the cup.

The classic Reformed view, articulated by John Calvin, teaches that Christ is truly and spiritually present in the Lord’s Supper.⁴⁸ This is often called the doctrine of “real spiritual presence.” It does not mean that the bread and wine physically transform into the body and blood of Christ (the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation). Nor does it mean that Christ’s physical body is “in, with, and under” the elements (the Lutheran view). Rather, it teaches that as the believer partakes of the physical elements by mouth, the Holy Spirit, by a mysterious and wonderful work, lifts the believer’s soul to heaven to feed on the ascended Christ by faith. In this way, the Supper is a true “means of grace,” a sacrament through which Christ Himself nourishes and strengthens the faith of His people.

The more common view among Baptists, which traces its roots to the Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, is that the Lord’s Supper is primarily a powerful symbol and a memorial of Christ’s death.⁶ The bread represents His broken body, and the cup represents His shed blood. In partaking, we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Believers enjoy communion with Christ by His Spirit when they gather, but this presence is not uniquely tied to the elements themselves in the way the Reformed view teaches. For this reason, Baptists strongly prefer the term “ordinance” over “sacrament,” to avoid any suggestion that the act itself confers grace.⁴⁰

But the lines here are not as sharp as they might seem. Many of the most respected “Reformed Baptists,” such as the great 19th-century preacher Charles Spurgeon, held a view of the Supper that was much richer than a “mere memorial” and sounded very much like Calvin’s.⁵⁶ They spoke of truly meeting and feeding on Christ at His table. This shows again the complexity of these traditions and the major overlap that can exist.

An interesting historical and psychological factor has also shaped this debate. Some evidence suggests that the strong emphasis on a purely memorial view in many Baptist circles developed, at least in part, as a defensive reaction against Roman Catholicism.⁵⁵ The fear was that any talk of “real presence” or the Supper as a “means of grace” was a “slippery slope to Rome.” This reveals that theological positions are not always formed in a sterile, academic environment. Sometimes, they are shaped by the polemical needs of the moment and a desire to create clear water between one’s own tradition and another that is perceived as erroneous. Understanding this historical context helps explain why the memorial view became so dominant within much of the Baptist world.

Who Runs the Church? A Tale of Two Governments

How a church organizes itself and makes decisions might seem like a purely practical matter, but it is deeply theological. The form of church government, or polity, that a tradition adopts is a direct reflection of its understanding of authority, community, and the nature of the church itself. Here, the Baptist and Reformed traditions offer two very different and distinct models.

The Baptist model is known as congregationalism.¹ The foundational principle of this model is the autonomy of the local church. Each individual congregation is seen as a complete self-governing and accountable directly to Jesus Christ as its head. This structure flows naturally from core Baptist beliefs like the “priesthood of all believers” and “soul competency”—the conviction that every believer is competent to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves and has direct access to God without the need for an intermediary priest or bishop.⁷ While local Baptist churches often choose to cooperate with one another in associations or conventions (like the Southern Baptist Convention), these larger bodies are voluntary and have no binding authority to command or discipline a local church.²⁰ The final authority on all matters of doctrine, discipline, and direction rests with the members of the local congregation itself.

The Reformed model, known as Presbyterianism (from the Greek word presbuteros, meaning “elder”), is connectional and hierarchical.¹⁹ In this system, the local church is not an isolated entity but is connected to and accountable to a wider body of churches. The local congregation is governed by a group of elders (both teaching elders, or pastors, and ruling elders, who are laymen) called the “session.” This session is then represented in a regional body of churches called the “presbytery.” The presbyteries, in turn, are represented in a national body called the “General Assembly.” These “higher courts” of the church have real, binding authority. They can ordain ministers, plant churches, settle disputes, and exercise discipline over both pastors and congregations.⁵⁸

These two systems have very different real-world implications. The Presbyterian model provides a structured system of accountability and appeal. A church member who feels they have been wronged by their local session has the right to appeal their case to the presbytery, and even to the General Assembly. This provides a level of protection and due process that is not formally present in a purely congregational system.⁶⁰ On the other hand, the congregational model fiercely protects the local church from what it might perceive as doctrinal error or overreach from a denominational body. If a convention or association begins to drift from its theological moorings, an autonomous congregational church is free to simply withdraw without being subject to the larger body’s discipline.

The choice of church government is not arbitrary. It is the logical, political expression of a deeper theology. Baptist congregationalism is the natural outflow of a theology that emphasizes the individual believer, their direct relationship with God, and the church as a voluntary gathering of such individuals. Presbyterian connectionalism is the natural outflow of a theology that emphasizes the corporate nature of the covenant people, the visible unity of the and the importance of mutual accountability among its ordained leaders.

Where Do We Stand Together? Our Deep and Abiding Agreements

After exploring the many differences that distinguish the Baptist and Reformed traditions, it is a joy to pivot and celebrate the vast, beautiful, and foundational common ground upon which we stand together. The disagreements, while real and important to understand, exist within a much larger framework of shared, non-negotiable, core Christian truth. When we step back and look at the great landscape of Christian belief, we see that what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us.

Both Baptists and Reformed Christians are families within the household of historic, orthodox Protestantism. Together, we joyfully champion and defend the great essentials of the faith, often standing shoulder-to-shoulder against theological error from without and cultural pressures from within.² We are united in our belief in:

• The Triune God: We worship one God who exists eternally as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
• The Supreme Authority of Scripture: We believe the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and sufficient Word of God, our only ultimate rule for faith and life (Sola Scriptura).
• The Person of Christ: We affirm that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, one person with two natures, the only mediator between God and humanity.
• The Plight of Humanity: We agree that all human beings are created in God’s image but have fallen into sin and are in desperate need of a Savior.
• The Gospel of Grace: We proclaim with one voice that salvation is not earned by works but is a free gift of God’s grace, received through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus).
• The Work of Christ: We believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ—that He died on the cross in our place, bearing the penalty for our sins.
• The Victory of Christ: We celebrate the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead as the proof of His victory over sin and death, and we look forward to His personal, visible return in glory.
• The Mission of the Church: We embrace the Great Commission as our shared mandate to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey all that Christ has commanded.

In a world that is increasingly secular, and in a culture that is often hostile to the claims of Christ, these shared convictions are our strength and our bond. From the perspective of those outside the faith, the distinctions between a Presbyterian and a Baptist can seem minor, even trivial. What they see is a united front of people who believe the Bible, worship Jesus, and seek to live their lives for the glory of God. This shared identity as followers of Christ and children of the Reformation is a precious inheritance. It reminds us that despite our different ways of understanding certain doctrines, we are, and always will be.

How Does the Catholic Church View These Protestant Debates?

To gain a fuller perspective on our family conversation, it can be incredibly helpful to step outside and see how it looks to others. By considering the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on these same issues, the disagreements between Baptists and the Reformed are cast in a new and clarifying light.¹¹

The Catholic view provides a powerful theological foil that highlights the powerful unity between the two main Protestant traditions. On the very points where Baptists and the Reformed differ, the Catholic position is fundamentally different from both of them.

• On Justification and Salvation: The Catholic Church teaches that justification is a process, not a one-time event. It is initiated by the grace of God in the sacrament of baptism and is then continued throughout a person’s life through a combination of faith and meritorious good works, all enabled by grace.⁶⁶ The Council of Trent went so far as to declare anathema (cursed) anyone who says that a person is justified by faith alone. This stands in the starkest possible contrast to the foundational Protestant principle of 

  Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), a doctrine on which Baptists and Reformed Christians are in complete agreement.

• On Baptism: For Catholics, baptism is the sacrament that accomplishes baptismal regeneration. Through the act of baptism, original sin is washed away, the person is made a “new creature,” and they are incorporated into Christ and His Church. It is the instrumental cause of their initial justification.⁶⁶ This view of baptism as a grace-infusing, sin-removing sacrament is fundamentally different from both the Reformed understanding of baptism as a “sign and seal” of the covenant and the Baptist understanding of baptism as a “symbol” of a believer’s faith.
• On the Lord’s Supper (Eucharist): The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation, the belief that during the Mass, the bread and wine are miraculously transformed in their essential substance into the actual, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Mass is also understood as a re-presentation of Christ’s one sacrifice on the cross.⁶⁸ This is worlds apart from both the Reformed view of a “real spiritual presence” and the Baptist “memorial” view.
• On Authority: For Roman Catholicism, the ultimate authority for faith and life is not Scripture alone, but a “three-legged stool” of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority of the Church (the Magisterium), which has the final say in interpretation.¹¹ This stands in sharp opposition to the Protestant principle of 

      <p> <em>Sola Scriptura</em>, which unites Baptists and the Reformed in affirming the Bible as their sole, final, and infallible authority.</p></li>
  

Viewing the landscape from this perspective is transformative. Suddenly, the theological distance between the Baptist and Reformed positions shrinks dramatically. Their internal debates over the mode and subjects of baptism, or the precise nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper, appear as smaller, in-house disagreements when compared to the chasm that separates them both from the Roman Catholic system. This external viewpoint serves a powerful pastoral purpose: it demonstrates that what unites these two great Protestant traditions—their shared commitment to the gospel of justification by faith alone and the supreme authority of Scripture—is far more fundamental and major than what divides them.

How Can We Love Each Other Amidst These Differences?

Our journey through the beliefs of the Baptist and Reformed traditions has been rich and, at times, complex. We have seen where our paths diverged and where they run parallel. Now we arrive at the most important question of all: how do we, as brothers and sisters in the same family of faith, live together in love amidst these real and deeply held differences? This is not an abstract question; it touches the real pain and joy of our life together as the people of God.⁴¹

We must acknowledge the pain that these disagreements can cause. Many have felt the sting of being judged by fellow believers. Many have experienced the overzealous, “cage stage” fervor of a new convert to a particular theological system, where passion outruns charity.⁷⁶ Many have faced the difficult and lonely task of finding a new church home in a town where no church perfectly matches their convictions, forcing them to navigate the very issues we have discussed.⁴¹ We must be honest about the temptation to retreat into our own theological tribes, viewing those who disagree with suspicion rather than love.⁸⁰

The path forward is paved with humility and charity. We are called to hold our convictions with integrity and strength, but also with a gentle and humble spirit, recognizing that we all “see in a mirror dimly.” It is vital to learn to distinguish between primary, gospel-essential doctrines and secondary, important-but-not-salvific doctrines. On the primary issues—the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the authority of Scripture, and justification by faith alone—there can be no compromise. But on these glorious truths, Baptists and Reformed believers stand united. On the secondary issues—the mode of baptism, the nature of the covenants, the structure of church government—we can and must extend grace and charity to one another. The words of Jesus should echo in our hearts: “For the one who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40).⁸⁰

How can we practically foster this unity in the midst of our diversity?

• Listen before you speak. Make a genuine effort to understand why a brother or sister from another tradition believes what they do. Read their best theologians. Ask questions with a sincere desire to learn, not to trap.
• Major on the majors. Intentionally focus your fellowship and partnership on the vast common ground of the gospel that we share. Celebrate together the glorious truths of our salvation in Christ.
• Pray for and with one another. There is no better way to break down walls of suspicion than to kneel together before our common Father, asking for His blessing on one another’s lives and ministries.
• Serve together. Partner in the work of the Great Commission. When we are engaged side-by-side in evangelism, mercy ministry, and social action, our shared mission in the world puts our internal disagreements in their proper perspective.
• Read widely. Step outside your own theological library. If you are a Baptist, read a book by a Presbyterian. If you are Reformed, read a book by a Baptist. This builds empathy and helps you see the heart and piety that animates their convictions.

We began this journey by calling it a family conversation, and that is how we must end. We are brothers and sisters, saved by the same astonishing grace, indwelt by the same Holy Spirit, serving the same Lord, and destined for the same eternal home where all our theological disagreements will vanish in the light of His glorious face. Until that day, let our discussions be marked by the love, patience, and forbearance that will show a watching world that we are truly His disciples.