Distinctives of a Reformed Baptist

In another forum there was some discussion concerning Reformed Baptists. Some of us, such as myself, claim to be Dispensational Reformed Baptist; however, the number of deffinitions for a RB are as many as the people you ask. For instance, many RBs would balk at me calling myself RB because of my Dispensationalism.
So what do you all think? Do any of you Covanental RBs begrudge me using the title? And how many other Dispensational Sovereign Grace Baptists are there out there? And if we can't use that title, what do you suggest?

 

None taken. But how about just DRB?? But MRB...I dunno, Covenant THeology is only 50 years older than Dispensationalism, so I dunno if you can justly call it much more "modern" than Covanentalism. But anyways, perhaps I should just stick to "Sovereign Grace Baptist" when it comes to labels, so there's no confusion concerning the peripheral issues.

 

I really only wanted a generalized label. But, if you want to know where I stand more specifically:
DISPENSATIONALISM- somewhere between Progressive and Classical Dallas, but I still need to iron out the details.
REFORMED- double predestination.
BAPTIST- independant fundamental.

 

I realize that a rejection of double predestination is popular, I rejected it myself for awhile. However, my accepting it is due to my understanding of God's sovereignty. Basically, I now see history a divinely written script, written in eternity past (for lack of a better explanation); and reject any creaturely autonomy (free will) as it would undermine God's absolute "Working all things after the council of His will." Of course, I do not purport that God is the author of sin- only that He ordained it, then brought it about in some manner that leaves Him totally holy and blameless, while man is left responsible (I don't claim to understand how He does that). I see God's hand in bringing about sin (including the rejection of the gospel) as active, not simply passive, yet the agent is accountable- he really did make the decision, but God really did ordain that he would. Anyways, this is basically irrelevent to our discussion- just thought I'd briefly explain supralapsarianism.

 

Thanx Gunther- it's all about the Potter's power to make vessels of both honor and dishonor.

 

Firstly, yes, there is a Baptistic form of Covenant Theology. I believe it's basically similar to regular Cov.Theo., but rejects the extreme typology found in Presbyterianism- which leads to infant baptism, unsaved church membership, etc.
Concerning God's Sovereignty in sin- it's hard to understand, but must be accepted. The premise is that God is behing the scenes, actively working out EVERYTHING as He sees fit for His purpose. You'll see me use this verse alot, but Eph.1:11 is pretty clear about that. However, He is impeccably holy, so though He is even in control of, and planned, sin- He remains blameless. Now, how does He do that? haha, no idea!! Now you will be quick to say that I've taken Eph.1:ll way too far, so let me give you a list of example verses that clearly show God bringing about sin, for the sake of His greater purpose: Is.10:1-6, Ps.105:25, Is.19:14, Judges 9:23, 1 Sam.16:14, Acts 4:27-28, Acts 2:22-23, Is.29:9-10, Ex.7:3-5, Is.44:18, Is.63:17, Josh 11:20, Deut.2:30, Jer.5:15, Prov.16:4 (in order to make wicked men, you have to make men wicked), Rom.9:18, Is.45:7, Lam.3:38, Job 2:10, Job 12:6-9, Ps.17:13-14, Prov.21:1 (is this limited to good kings making good decisions? or is it broader?), 2 Sam.16:10, 2 Chron.18:22, Ezra 14:9-10, 2 Thess.2:11-12, Rev.17:16-17, Ps.90:3, Matt.11:25, Deut.13:1-5, Joel 3:2, Rev.17:17, Deut.29:4, Ecc.7:14, etc.etc.
I could go on, these are only some of the passages I have noticed so far in my Bible study. No doubt, you will be able to explain some of them away, and some will not be satisfactory to you- but I don't think you can argue against my position until you've reconciled in your mind each and every one of these verses. God bless your study!

 

Thanx for the correction. The reason I said what I did about the typology, is due to Presbyterian brethren taking one type (Israel/church), and using that as a basis for some strange views- such as carrying OT practices over to the church, applying Jewish conditional promises to the church, cutting "Israel" out of prophetic passages and pasting in "church", and reading the NT back into the OT in order to establish an OT "church", etc. But yes, this is really all based in not distinguishing God's "change of plans" between the two Covenants.
I suppose the Covanentalists use of typology has make me wary of the whole thing, I only wish a Dispensationalist would write a book on the topic.