The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Is Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum Reformed?

(Fred) It probably would not matter in their minds; I would imagine they would say these people need to repent and they are only "tolerated" to a certain degree where the two groups may agree.
Ultimately a person's definition of the word "Reformed" will be in relation to how they understand the nature of "reforming" and "reformation." This is probably going to sound provocative to those on the board, but my observation has been that many in the "Reformed" tradition would like to think they own the market on the concept of "reformed" and any use of the word automatically implies you are a baby baptizing, covenantal, non-premillenniarian. Obviously, there is an historic aspect to the word, but I think the definition argued for in the above post assumes that the key reformers rescued Christian theology from Rome and placed all their theological ducks in a row back in 1560. Any departure from what is understood as the "once and for all delivered faith," as interpreted by those in the 16th century, is considered being schismatic. So, in their minds, there are no such thing as "Reformed" baptists, nor could any truly "reformed" person utilize any aspect of dispensational hermenuetics. This attitude is not exclusive to these individuals. I would imagine all Christian groups probably adhere to some form of "exclusivity" in their thinking. Reformed baptists, as an example, can also suffer from this form of theological myopia, because they will argue only genuinely "reformed" Baptists will be covenantal. Any one who departs from that paradigm, and believes for instance, there is a distinction between the law as regulated through the theocratic nation of Israel and its regulation through the person of Christ, is outside the camp of "reformed" thought. In my mind, I am usually dismissive of such attitudes.

Fred
www.fredsbibletalk.com