Reformed Baptists are such a refreshing change from the madness of the dispensational branch that has grown out of control in the last 100-150 years. Mexico has very few reformed Baptists, but that seems to be changing.
Our church would probably most closely identify with that of a Reformed Baptist. It’s not ideal, particularly due to the dangers of the polity, but it’s what we have.
I’ve been trying to understand the differences between the Presbyterian (with which I would identify) and Baptist covenantalism. They are, historically, similar in many ways. And as such, the early Baptist confessions are nearly identical to the Westminster Standards.
Even so, I’m trying to find the better arguments for baptistic covenantalism. So far this book has not been very impressive in that its intended audience is someone that has very little familiarity with the subject. Nonetheless, here’s a helpful start at identifying the difference in the two forms of covenantalism:
“Just before God promised his ancient prophet a New Covenant, he made a declaration of a change in administration of the covenant of grace. The change has to do with God’s matter of dealing with children. Notice exactly the wording of this proverb, one that was common in ancient Israel: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In the past, this passage tells us, God dealt with children according to the status and actions of their fathers. If a father was a member of the Covenant, so were the children. If the father was obedient or transgressed, the children also were blessed or suffered punishment accordingly. Jeremiah 31:29-30 teachers that such would not be a matter of dealing with people in the New Covenant. As the Prophet States in verse 30, “But each one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth should be set on edge.” This instructs unmistakeably that in the New Covenant each person will be dealt with individually, whether his father is a believer or not, or whether his father has sinned or not. The standing of the father before God will have utterly no bearing on the place of the child and covenant dealings. The implications of this are far-reaching: a child would not automatically be included in the Covenant by birth or baptism, or simply because his father is a covenant member. By the same token, if a child is a member of a visible Church in New Covenant days in his father’s excommunicated, the child is not cast out along with the father.” (pp50-51)