This thread comes from the observation that many "Reformed" baptist holds a radically different view of the New Covenant vs the Old Covenant. For example, in their view, if I am not mistaken, the New Covenant is: 1. Completely internal, only made with the elect. 2. No one knows who are in the New Covenant, as no one knows who are the elect. 3. There is no covenant sign of the New Covenant, because not all who receive a physical sign (e.g baptism/communion) are in the New Covenant in any sense. 4. The visible church cannot be called the Covenant community, as not all baptized into the visible church belongs to the New Covenant. etc. At what point can someone still claim to be "Reformed" or holding "Covenant theology"? For example, can a progressive dispensationalist claim to be a "Covenant theologian" or "Reformed"? If no, what disqualify him? Is there a historical sense of the term "Reformed" or "Covenant theology" that we should follow?