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

Hi Friends,

Some people told me that De Arnold Fruchtenbaum from Ariel Ministries http://www.ariel.org is Reformed in his theology. That he is a 4 point Calvinist, having difficulty with the L.
Any comments on this?

Also, but maybe this should be a separate thread, what do you think of his flavour of Messianic Dispensationalism?
Does anybody have material that can counter his arguments?

Many thanks in advance

Jim

[img]http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/welcome_scroll.gif" align="absmiddle[/img] to The Highway Discussion Board.

I read through their doctrinal statement and it would appear, on the surface anyway, that the ministry holds to at least 3 points. There is no doubt that they hold to Amyraldianism. And the one that remains questionable for me is Total Depravity. I didn't really find a clear statement as to the extent of the Fall; i.e., the noetic effects which mankind possesses as sons of Adam.

As for his brand of "Messianic Dispensationalism", I'll bite my tongue and say little since I find such bifurcation of Israel and the Church a bit odious. But to be honest, I didn't notice anything particular to the Messianic movement in their doctrinal statement. Perhaps I missed it.

One thing I did notice which is a pet peeve of mine is their statement concerning the eternality of Jesus Christ.

Section One - [color:"blue"]The Deity of Christ[/color]

We believe in the full deity of the Lord Jesus Christ who always was and will be God and did not cease to be God at the incarnation.

What I find in error with that statement is that they, as is typical today of many, fail to distinguish between the eternal SON of God and the incarnate Christ. The Son is eternally God, but the Lord Jesus Christ as the God-man was not eternal. The human nature of Christ came to be in time when the Son took upon Himself human flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. (John 1:14) I have little doubt that they would have no argument with my objection.

In His Grace,

I saw a statement of his Dispensationalism, but no valid argument that a good lesson on Rev 20 would not cure or a proper understanding of CT would fix. The Highway's extensive articles covers these areas well: Calvinism, then look under eschatology. I must agree with Pilgrim on the rest of his post as well ... I do not see that Fruchtenbaum is a Calvinist with such statements as "He loves us individually and [i]equally[/i]," as "equally" denies election, etc. While God does have common grace toward ALL, He does not have saving grace toward all ... Moreover, Fruchtenbaum says of salvation, "it is a free gift we can choose to receive," however the Scripture says salvation is more than just a concept one may choose; in reality is it not a person that chooses us (John 3; 6:44, 65, etc.) first?

Thank you, Pilgim

Do I understand from your tongue biting that you haven't got much time for dispensationalism full stop? Let alone any Messianic flavour?
I was wondering personally if the basic reformed doctrines conflict with dispensationalism. I cannot prove it but I would be inclined to think they would.

In Christ
Jim

We've had several discussions, one just recently on the compatibility of Dispensationalism vs. Calvinism. There can be no doubt that "full-blown" classic Darbyism/Scofieldism is incompatible with Calvinism. However, unlike some, I can accept those who hold to a "Dispy-Lite" form of Dispensationalism, e.g., John MacArthur &co. I simply cannot put that position in the same camp with Classic Dispensationalism, although I certainly reject it on it's own demerits. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

This Arnold Fruchtenbaum appears to hold to a type of "Dispy-Lite" view from what I was able to discern from his Doctrinal Statement. And since that was my first exposure to him and his ministry, I would be unfair to form more than an opinion at this point.

In His Grace,

Are you saying that this dispy-lite form (of eschatology) in your opinion is an acceptable form of hermeneutics, or to say it slightly blunter, that those adhering to it could be, possibly, correct or right? Or are you just saying that they aren't necessarily wrong?

Sorry if I sound a bit confusing here. I have heard that MacArthur adheres to some kind of dispensationalism, which as a matter of fact I found very surprising.

In Christ
Jim

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> No..... sorry for any confusion. I reject ALL forms of Dispensationalism as erroneous. But what I'm saying is that the "Dispy-Lite" version of Dispensationalism, is far from the Classic Dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield. Those who hold the "Lite" do not believe in the radical discontinuity of the other by any stretch of the imagination. So, I do believe that this "Dispy-Lite" eschatology is unbiblical, but it isn't necessarily incompatible with the infamous Five Points of Calvinism. There are many who hold both, albeit despite whatever tension there may be between the two.

I simply wanted to avoid the all too uncommon and unfortunate mistake some make in equating the two views. Although they have some similarities in certain areas, e.g., the Israel/Church distinction, they are basically miles apart. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

FYI, I hold to A-millennialism. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Many thanks for the clarification, Pilgrim

Jim I think I've said this before but if not I'm going to repeat it. (That's for all of you who has read it before). If you hold to dispensationalism you are not Reformed in your theology. A person may hold to a reformed view regarding soteriology (ie: TULIP) but to be Reformed is to hold to covenant theology and not dispensationalism.

OK, I would agree, but how do you argue it with a person who comes out of a Reformed tradition, still has a Reformed view regarding soteriology, but gives up his covenant theology because he thinks dispensationalism is more biblical?

In His grace
Jim

(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

I'm surprised to even hear that he holds to any form of reformed tradition. Messianic Dispy is still a strong form of Dispensationalism.

Hi Puritanlady,
what is your experience with Messianic Dispy?

Jim