Opening Can of Worms!
What is distinctively Reformed? I think alot of baggage that is touted today behind using the word Reformed is over Paedobaptism within their covenantal thinking.... Alot of times it goes like this"
Major Premise: All Reformers were Paedobaptist.
Minor Premise: Baptist are not Covenantalist
Conclusion: Therefore Baptist cannot be Reformed
I believe this to be a grave mistake... It cannot be denied that the major reformers were unanimously against the rejection of infant baptism. While it may be argued that in a way this is begging the question, since there were those in the days of the reformers who were genuine Christians and rejected the practice of infant baptism and were covenantal and are not considered reformers because they were baptists, this is not necessary in order to disprove this argument.
I would argue that to be Reformed one must hold to following doctrines:
5 Solas, 5 points of Calvinism, Moral Law, Regulative Worship and Covenantalism.
What do we I mean by covenantalism, well let me add two great historic quotes from Paedobaptist Covenantalist...
First I would ask that you examine the following quote. Here we have a present-day Reformed Presbyterian Pastor explaining covenant theology by the use of a quotation from a Puritan Divine.
One of the most brilliant illustrations of covenant theology is that used by the Puritan divine Thomas Goodwin. In his exposition entitled Christ Set Forth, he explains that 'Adam was reckoned as a common public person, not standing singly or alone for himself, but as representing all mankind to come of him'. In this he was a type of Christ, who is also a representative figure. This is why the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:47, speaks of Adam and Christ as 'the first man' and 'the second Man' respectively 'He speaks of them', says Goodwin, 'as if there had never been any more men in the world, nor were ever to be for time to come, except these two. And why? but because these two between them had all the rest of the sons of men hanging at their girdle.'
Can you visualize the picture which Goodwin draws for us? He imagines two great giants, one called Adam and the other Christ. Each is wearing an enormous leather 'girdle' or belt with millions of little hooks on it. You and I, and all humanity, are hanging either at Adam's belt or at Christ's belt. There is no third option, no other place for us. And God deals with us only through Adam or through Christ. If you are hanging at Adam's belt, you share in the experience of sinful, fallen Adam, and your entire relationship with God is through him. But if you are hanging at Christ's belt, all God's dealings with you are through Christ. When you received Jesus as your Saviour, you were involved in a massive and momentous transfer. The Almighty himself unhooked you from Adam's belt and hooked you on to Christ's. So you now have a different Head, a different Mediator, a new Representative. You have passed from Adam into Christ, and whereas God formerly dealt with you only through Adam, he now deals with you only through his Son. You are in Christ unchangeably and for ever.
[Edward Donnelly Heaven and Hell p. 87, citing ' Goodwin's Works, James Nichol edition, 1862, Vol. 4, p. 31. ]
I whole heartedly agree with Pastor Donnelly, this is the best illustration of the covenant theology of the Bible I have ever seen. But let us examine the truth it portrays. All men were in Adam in the garden. All men fell in Adam when he sinned. All stood in Adam, all fell in Adam, all died in Adam. This is covenant theology. But God chose not to leave His elect in Adam! He unites His elect to Christ in such a way that He took on the guilt of their sins and paid the full penalty for them, and His righteousness is credited as theirs! And what would the Bible set forth as the chord by which the elect are attached to Christ's belt? What does the Bible represent as that by which sinners are united to Jesus Christ? Faith, as Pastor Donnelly points out, "When you received Jesus as your Saviour, you were involved in a massive and momentous transfer. The Almighty himself unhooked you from Adam's belt and hooked you on to Christ's." This is Biblical covenant theology. Does the practice of Disciple's Baptism, only baptizing those who possess a credible profession of that faith which joins the elect to Christ in any way detract from this covenant theology? No.
Let us continue on to the next witness. John Owen's view of what the Bible teaches about the New Covenant was vastly different from that which is most commonly set forth by Reformed Paedobaptists of our day. In his commentary on Hebrews (my favorite set of books in the world) he takes the same view of the New Covenant that Reformed Baptists are often ridiculed for teaching today. A small handful of quotes should suffice for our purpose.
Reformed Baptists will often point to Hebrews 8 and the description of the New Covenant there. (Not to mention that the entire book of Hebrews is setting forth Christ's work as the mediator of the New Covenant) But, back to the point, we see there that one unique aspect of the New Covenant is that every person properly a member of that covenant will know the Lord in a saving way: verse 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, "Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them." We point out that all, from the least to the greatest leaves no room for anyone in the covenant who doesn't know God. We are laughed at, accused of non-exegesis, and given the objection: "No one has ever interpreted it that way." Enter John Owen:
"For such a spiritual knowledge is intended as whereby the mind is renewed, being accompanied with faith and love in the heart. This is that knowledge which is promised in the new covenant, and which shall be wrought in all them who are interested therein." (Exposition of Hebrews vol. 6, pp 167,168)
"The whole knowledge of God in Christ is both plainly revealed and savingly communicated, by virtue of the new covenant, unto them who do believe..."(ibid. p 165)
"Where there is not some degree of saving knowledge, there no interest in the new covenant can be pretended."(ibid. p. 167)
"Persons destitute of this saving knowledge are utter strangers unto the covenant of grace; for this is a principal promise and effect of it, wherever it doth take place."(ibid. p. 168)
Here are some other comments exhibiting Owen's view of the New Covenant:
"For all those with whom this covenant is made shall as really have the law of God written in their hearts, and their sins pardoned, according unto the promise of it, as the people of old were brought into the land of Canaan by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham. These are the true Israel and Judah, prevailing with God, and confessing unto his name." (ibid. p 118)
"For by the making of this covenant with any, the effectual communication of the grace of it unto them is principally intended. Nor can that covenant be said to be made absolutely with any but those whose sins are pardoned by virtue thereof, and in whose hearts the law of God is written; which are the express promises of it." (ibid. p. 118)
"Those whose sins are not pardoned do in no sense partake of this covenant; it is not made with them. For this is the covenant that God makes with them, that he will be merciful unto their sins; that is, unto them in the pardon of them." (ibid. p. 169)
Where is Paedobaptism within Covenantalism within these two famous Paedobaptist Divines.... It is not there..... We have seen that the terminology "Reformed Baptist" is a credible and accurate, and in fact necessary term, and I will continue to use Reformed Baptist...
Michael
rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed
Personally, I would just accept someone calling themselves a RB, and consider it a single term, using a compound expression. The "Reformed" part is mainly a soteriological referent, although it also frequently borrows certain elements from the covenant-theology mix. And most RBs use one of the 17th century English Baptist confessions. On that score, the "Baptist" part is expressed. the biggest problem there is that so few Baptists today are confessional, so that term has a lot of other baggage. So I'd reiterate: RB is a useful name.
If you want to get into the historical definitions, that is, going back to the original definitions and about a century of usage, clearly there are issues of terminology. I'm pretty sure that a RB with a reasonably good historical awareness will concede that the 17th century English Baptists were self-consciously rejecting certain doctrines that were distinctively Reformed. And for that reason, they were not reluctant then to differentiate themselves from the "Reformed" church. Now, going on three centuries later, it is helpful to use a word like Reformed and attach it to the description Baptist to help show that there are still old-style Baptists who remain separate from, but not wholly antithetical to, the church movement known as "Reformed".
and home brew 
(I couldn't help myself 
)
Mark. I have heard said and my pastor would agree that the purpose of the civil government is to uphold the second table of the law and the purpose of the church government is to uphold the first.
and 
. We have to throw you a bone every now and again. Every time the Baptists begin to riot in the PB I do a mad rush to find a famous "Reformed" Baptist. Of course, they are pretty hard to find! 
Most of the Lutherans and Anglicans I know find it impossible too.
