I speak as one who went the opposite direction ... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the Baptist tradition.actually seem to me to be born of a fairly poor, almost inexcusable knowledge of the actual "Baptist Tradition." What, with the great works of the Reformed champion, the "Prince of Preachers" Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the beloved Puritan preacher and author John Bunyan, and the signatories of the Great Baptist Confessions of Faith (1644/46 and 1689) so readily available? I actually should find it quite surprising that the majority of Baptist Churches in America aren't Reformed. That is, of course, if I weren't fairly well versed in the history of the American Evangelical tradition post Ryrie, Schofield, and Finney. So, well, I'm not surprised, but still sort of shocked at what I can't escape calling "misstatements." Perhaps a better statement would be:
I speak as one who went the opposite direction (towards dispensationalism)... from being brought up in the Reformed camp and eventually embracing the American Evangelical tradition in a (Free Will; Trinity; Southern; American) Baptist Church.I dunno. Either way, like any other church that clings to the dividing of God's people or watches the horizon for a new temple to be erected and sacrifices to begin again, yours is not of the Baptist tradition but of 160 year old mostly American tradition.
no Baptist church I have ever been in that even had a hint of Covenant theological perspective.Well, allow me to introduce you to one of many (who are, happily, spreading again). Rockdale Community Church is a Reformed Baptist Fellowship in Conyers, GA. We are, in fact, adherents to Covenant Theology (of a slightly different brand than my friend topcat54, to be sure). And, to introduce you to a Reformed Baptist covenant theology adherent:
My name is Ray Nearhood. I, along with my family, am a Particular Baptist. I confess with the Great Creeds of the Christian Church (the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689. My children are being catechized and taught the creeds. My eldest son, upon his confession of faith, was baptized just a few short years ago (to this day, the gladdest day of my life - to be equaled only by seeing youngest confess and be baptized). My faith is, undoubtedly, of a Puritan bend, in that I daily strive at mortification, I hold to a Regulative Principal of Worship, and I understand daily my wretchedness and try to depend wholly on the strength and guidance of the Sovereign Lord who saved me and daily saves me (though I fail in all these things too often).Well, there you have it. You've "met" one Calvinist Baptist over the interwebs. Here's hoping you meet more.
The current debate is really about the meaning of literal interpretation. My conjecture is that covenant theology and dispensational theology believe they are each employing literal interpretation. But they cannot both be consistent in that application because of the huge chasm between them in the area of eschatology. Certainly I would not claim that reformers are not interpreting the NT literally ... but when approaching the OT the literal interpretation used in the reformed camp breaks down IMO. By projecting a NT understanding on the OT text in the interpretive process you are ignoring the OT background and removing the OT from its historical context ... which can have the effect of shifting meaning and replacement theology.
Why do dispensationalists see future promises for the nation of Israel? Because the literal interpretation of the OT text shows that the promises to the nation of Israel have yet to be fulfilled in their entirity. So, for example, the discussion on Daniel 9:24-27 (which I think started the whole discussion) the dispensationalist would come to a different understanding of this prophecy that the reformed theologian. Why? Well, as I have mentioned previously, the reformed perspective will substitute meanings for details in the text that the grammatical historical context does not support. How could you ever get that the "abomination of desolation" is the continuance of the sacrificial system between Christs death and 70 AD? You have to impose a NT theme on the OT text. At that point you have abandoned any sense of literalism.