Looking at Dr. Fruchtenbaum's website, http://www.ariel.org/, I don't really see much indication that he is a Calvinist. He is certainly a dispensationalist, however, and a proponent of the "Messianic Judaism" movement, much of which is of questionable validity.

How is it making Christ a liar?<br>And where does the Bible say that there is a distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws?

Having read a few of his books I can confirm he is, like most dispensationalists, a 4 point Calvinist.

Pilgrim,<br>I was simply doing what everybody else here seems to do. Instead of refuting some issue, they refer the poster to numerous and exhausting (literally) works that others have done. This often seems to be an attempt to simply end the issue without ever dealing with the issues at hand.<br><br>The issue at hand is my hermeneutic, which is simply the literal interpretation of BOTH Old and New Testament Scriptures when possible. I was having to do too many hermeneutical gymnastics when I was Reformed, and I realized it was an unethical treatment of Scripture. It completely ignored the Old Testament in its context, and read the Old Testament Scriptures in a way that nobody at that time ((i.e the time that they were written), would have understood.<br>Think about how the Old Testament is presented in Covenantal/Reformed theology. Would the original readers have understood it that way? <br><br>Steve

Steve,<br><br>I have no objection to someone referring me to an article, website, etc., to augment their OWN arguments. But I simply don't find someone referring me to some obscure book, which I would have to buy as being helpful. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Think about how the Old Testament is presented in Covenantal/Reformed theology. Would the original readers have understood it that way?</font><hr></blockquote><p>Absolutely! The fact that the Jews and particularly the Pharisees, the doctors of the Scriptures, charged the Lord Christ with breaking the Sabbath on more than one occasion, not to mention all that He taught concerning the Law (Moral), seems to indicate quite clearly that they fully understood the continuity of the covenant and its precepts.<br><br>Again, I will hopefully be posting some relevant and indepth articles concerning the Sabbath, re: it being a universal and perpetual MORAL law and its change from the Israelic Saturday to the Christian/Church Sunday, D.v. . . . stay tuned. Oh, I'm wondering if you have taken my recommendation and read through Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's treatise on: The Covenantal Sabbath, which I contend is irrefutable.<br><br>In His Grace,

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Having read a few of his books I can confirm he is, like most dispensationalists, a 4 point Calvinist.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Most dispensationalists I've known are thoroughly Arminian. I would contend that if he is missing any of the five points, it's inaccurate to call him a "Calvinist." Which of the five is he missing?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]How is it making Christ a liar?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Because Christ Himself said He came not to destroy the Law!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]And where does the Bible say that there is a distinction between the ceremonial and moral laws?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Christ Himself makes the distinction by reaffirming Old Testament moral codes, while at the same time making, for example, the laws of kashruth unnecessary.

Calvinism has been defined in different ways (I want to make clear that I know what Calvin taught. If I state that a 4 pointer is a Calvinist, I know that he is not teaching exactly what Calvin taught. Calvinism is often a generic term for essentially believing fully in the sovereignty of God). I know some who say that if one even believes an Arminian is saved then you are not a Calvinist! <br><br>Most Dispensationalists hold to four of the five points of Calvinism. The point they disagree upon, of course, is the limited atonement. <br><br>A few of the sensationalist Dispensationalists (say that fast 10 times!) are Arminians. But the majority of the scholars including Robert Thomas, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, JD Pentecost, Trevor Craigen, LS Chafer, etc. have been four pointers. Some, like John MacArthur even claim to be 5 pointers, but if you read him, he appears to really be a four pointer.<br><br>/scc/<br><br><br>

Thanks.<br>Re this topic, from a covenantal 1st day position, I have read Warfield, Berkoff, Hoeksema, Calvin, Reymond, Kersten, Gill, Dagg, a slew of PRC and OPC folks, and a few others. From the 7th day side I have read a handful each of 7th Day Baptists and even some Adventists. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, but merely so y'all don't think I haven't given this any thought and if only I could be enlightened by another covenantalist....<br><br>Blessings,<br>Steve

Thanks.<br>Re this topic, from a covenantal 1st day position, I have read Warfield, Berkoff, Pink, sproul, Hoeksema, Calvin, Reymond, Kersten, Gill, Dagg, a slew of PRC and OPC folks, and a few others. From the 7th day side I have read a handful each of 7th Day Baptists and even some Adventists. I'm not saying this to pat myself on the back, but merely so y'all don't think I haven't given this any thought and if only I could be enlightened by another covenantalist....<br><br>Blessings,<br>Steve

li0scc0<br>I have read quite a bit of John MacArthur and I don't understand where you get that he appears to be a 4 pointer.<br>I know some people probably think that Spurgeon was a 4 pointer, because they disagree with his interpretation of a few Scripture passages.<br>I am interested in seeing where you get the idea that MacArthur is a 4 pointer.<br><br>Tom

li0scc0<br>I would be interested in seeing you do a critique on the article that Pilgrim posted in this thread by Dr. Lee.<br><br>Tom

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Calvinism has been defined in different ways (I want to make clear that I know what Calvin taught. If I state that a 4 pointer is a Calvinist, I know that he is not teaching exactly what Calvin taught. Calvinism is often a generic term for essentially believing fully in the sovereignty of God). I know some who say that if one even believes an Arminian is saved then you are not a Calvinist!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The most widely used and readily applicable definition of "Calvinist" is one who holds to the five points of the Canons of Dordt. Thus, a "four-point" Calvinist can hardly be called a Calvinist at all.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Most Dispensationalists hold to four of the five points of Calvinism.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>How do you mean "most dispensationalists," then? Because I was raised in dispensationalist churches, and they are decidely not Calvinist, either in official church doctrine or in general belief.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The point they disagree upon, of course, is the limited atonement.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Which I argue makes them, by logical necessity, either universalists (Christ's atonement is effective for all) or Arminians (Christ's atonement is potentially effective for all, but effectiveness rests in man's decision to believe in Christ).

How do you mean "most dispensationalists<br>The word "most" implies >50%. The major dispensational seminaries are 4 pointers .<br><br>Having read about the Canons of Dordt, I would define an Arminian as one who follows the teachings of Arminius. A four point Calvinist would NOT be an Arminian. If you are going to limit calling a Calvinist as to one who holds all five points, then I can limit the definition of an Arminian. :)<br><br>In His service,<br>Steve

Re Macarthur, it is mainly from listening to his radio show.