Before I begin, an important reminder: The First Fruits of Zion (and the larger Hebrew Roots Movement) is NOT a part of Messianic Judaism, the book discussed below claims to speak on behalf of that perspective, but the author and the organization he represents do NOT belong to it {"FFOZ does not represent the messianic Jewish movement", a quotation from an email I received from a Messianic Jewish Rabbi serving in leadership with the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues (IAMCS) He also wrote, "Messianic Jewish leaders universally reject One Law theology. FFOZ is not a messianic Jewish organization or ministry."}
One of the primary defenses of those leading and participating in Torah Clubs here in Venango County has been, "it's just a Bible study." As pastors, when attempting to do our duty before God of protecting the flock from dangerous theologies and attempts to divide our congregations and Christian community, it is important that we don't use hyperbole by claiming that bad ideas are heretical ones, or that things that we don't personally agree with are actually affronts to God. That sort of foolishness happens all too often, and people are rightly wary when a religious leader warns those in his/her charge to completely avoid an idea, organization, or movement. If you're familiar with my blog, you know how often I've warned against the all too common habit in America today of labeling those on the other side of an issue as evil or claiming their ideas would destroy the nation or church. With that perspective in mind, and the, "Why are you calling a Bible study unorthodox?" question in firm view, continue reading.
When it comes to the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs), the evidence continues to mount that the warning from the Franklin Christian Ministerium was both warranted and on target {The Franklin Christian Miniserium's warning against the Torah Clubs and the First Fruits of Zion}. After learning about this book (I just came across it yesterday), the case has only grown that much stronger.
Should Christians really participate in a Bible study designed and created by an organization that believes that each of the churches that you belong to are founded on inherently anti-Semitic beliefs? If FFOZ doesn't actually believe such a loaded charge, and few accusations could be as damning if they were proved to be true, why would they publish a book built upon that premise?
The following quotations and commentary from Jacob Fronczak's book are pulled from the review of it by Rich Robinson as published in the journal Mishkan in 2021, you can read the full review here: Book Review of Fronczak, Why Messianic Judaism is Incompatible with the Five Foundations of Protestantism - by Rich Robinson {The quotations from Fronczak's book will appear in italics, the commentary from Robinson in bold, and my comments on both in ordinary text following them.}
In the preface to Rethinking the Five Solae, author Jacob Fronczak
proffers the thesis that the five solae (or as more often anglicized, solas) of
the Reformation are “themselves the root of Protestant anti-Semitism” (p.
2) and that “as they are normally understood, are designed to exclude Jews
as much as Catholics from any definition of true and biblical religion”
(ibid). These are serious charges, and so the book’s aim is “to re-examine
the Five Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective” (p. 3). Fronczak is
himself non-Jewish, though moving in Messianic Jewish circles.
My comment: Is that not a serious charge! That the very foundations of Protestant thought are the cause of Protestant anti-Semitism! Let me be clear, the Church as a whole, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike, has a horrific and evil history of anti-Semitism, I will not minimize nor excuse an ounce of it, and have on numerous occasions called out and denounced its modern manifestations. Each and every cause of Christian anti-Semitism should be examined and reckoned with. But to say that the theology of the five solas are themselves the cause of the sinful anti-Semitism in Protestant history is to label the entire movement's premise as evil. Again, hard to say that the Torah Clubs (FFOZ) are just organizing and leading Bible studies meant to enhance the Church, when this is what they are willing to publish about Protestantism.
For those who need a refresher on the Five Solas (or Solae), here they are: sola scriptura (according to Scripture alone), sola fide (by faith alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), solus Christus (by Christ alone), and soli Deo Gloria (to the glory of God alone).
So, what powerful evidence of inherent anti-Semitism does Fronczak follow-up his explosive claim with?
Unfortunately, what the author really ends up addressing is
misunderstandings, or misuses, of the solas rather than the way they are
understood and utilized by responsible interpreters.
My comment: If all you have are examples of the ideas of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest being twisted and used in ways they themselves would have rejected, it becomes rather ludicrous to say that their ideas are the problem.
"I aim to show here that when a proponent of sola scriptura studies
the Bible, he is relying on something other than the inspired Word
of God, whether he realizes it or not. Furthermore, I seek to show
that those who malign the investigation and examination of
traditional Jewish literature to illuminate the text of the Scripture
are themselves ignorant of their own reliance on tradition and the
usefulness of extra-biblical literature." (p. 8)
In these examples I find the author to be tilting at windmills. Who denies
that we should look to extra-biblical sources (Jewish, Greco-Roman,
ancient Near Eastern) to arrive at an understanding of Scripture? Sola
scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final, not the only, authority. And who are these people who “malign” using Jewish sources? They are
not scholars, and I’m not sure that I know of any pastors or lay people who
would argue that way.
My comment: Tilting at windmills (nice literary reference there), indeed. It is a rare Protestant who thinks that a high view of the authority of Scripture negates the role of scholarship, archeology, history, and a host of other disciplines that help the Church fully understand what God was trying to say to his people when the Word was given to its original audience, and how that truth can in turn be applied in our world. Each an every week I lead two Bible studies where we go verse by verse through the Word of God. Those who have attended (and you can listen to the audio of them here: Bible Study Podcasts) will tell you that we spend an awful lot of time talking about historical context, cultural settings, textual and translational issues, and more, all in the pursuit of that very Protestant belief in sola scriptura. Like Rich Robinson, I am at a loss as to who Fronczak is thinking of when he claims that Protestants don't utilize or malign extra-biblical Jewish sources as potential insights into the text of Scripture.
Furthermore, Fronczak repeatedly insists that because the solas
distinguished Protestantism from Catholicism, they were designed to draw
circles and exclude others. Defining boundaries, however, is a part of life.
If you are some things, then you are also not other things. This is just a
statement of fact. It has precious little to do with denigrating Judaism or
Catholicism or anything else.
My comment: From 1517 onward, it was pretty important to offer explanations of why Lutheranism differed with Catholicism, why the Reformed differed from Lutheranism and Catholicism, and for fun, why the Anabaptists disagreed with them all. Can you differentiate your belief system and or group from similar ones with malice? Absolutely, but that isn't inherent in the process, to claim that the five solae do this toward both Catholics and Jews could equally be said (and equally foolishly) of every effort that any movement in Church history has made to define itself.
In his conclusion, the author writes that, “In considering the Five
Solae from a Messianic Jewish perspective, we have at times questioned
their usefulness—at least as they seem to be understood by today’s
evangelical Protestants” (p. 131). This however, is a far cry from showing
that they are at the root of anti-Semitism (they aren’t) and far from
showing that as properly understood, as opposed to popularly
(mis)understood, they are not useful (they are).
My comment: Again, Fronczak uses a 'we' there that doesn't belong. He is himself a non-Jew, the organization he represents, and the movement that it belongs to, have been categorically rejected by the largest Messianic Jewish organizations. That they think they have become Jews, spiritually or otherwise, by following this theological path, is part of the reason why the Franklin Christian Ministerium has chosen to oppose them.
Robinson's review concludes that Fronczak has failed, entirely, to demonstrate at all his explosive premise.
"It is contradictory to claim to live a Jewish life in Messiah and at
the same time deprecate Jewish tradition (sola scriptura),
minimize the importance of good works (sola fide), claim that
traditional Judaism is legalistic (sola gratia), distance oneself from
organizational Messianic Judaism (solus Christus), and refrain from giving honor to those who have gone before one, those on
whose shoulders we all stand (soli Deo gloria)." (p. 134) This is simply put, a raw caricature of what the solas stand for.
My comment: To destroy a strawman is not that difficult, but it doesn't help anyone, and it proves nothing. It is hardly worth explaining why each of Fronczak's charges against each sola is nonsense, it should be obvious to anyone who has studied Protestant theology. In brief only, then: (1) Sola scriptura puts tradition in a secondary place, it does not depreciate it or ignore it. (2) Sola fide is a summation of the NT's emphasis on faith, neither Paul nor any other NT author diminishes the need for confirming good works to follow it (see for example: Ephesians 2:8-10, where vs. 8-9 declare the supremacy of faith and grace, AND vs. 10 proclaims that God has good works set aside for each of us to do). (3) The theology of sola gratia does not call the Law of Moses legalistic in the way that Fronczak is using the word, but would indeed take issues with the same abuses of 2nd Temple Judaism that Jesus repeatedly crushed the Pharisees for upholding. (4) Solus Christus in no way is aimed at organizational Messianic Judaism, how could it be? For those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Christ alone makes all the sense in the world. (5) Lastly, Soli Deo Gloria directs all worship and honor to God, as it should be, it doesn't dishonor our ancestors in the faith. The author of Hebrews was more than capable of lauding the heroes of the faith who had gone before him without taking an ounce of God's ultimate glory, displayed in even the triumphs of those men and women, away from God.
When you set out to prove that the heart of Protestantism is inherently anti-Semitic, but only end up trashing Straw Men that we don't even believe, why would an organization publish and promote such a baseless attack?
In denigrating the five solas, he
both fails to understand them and fails to allow Protestants to speak for
themselves as to their meaning...I simply fail to grasp his rationale for choosing the solas
as his whipping boy.
For the record, I am a Messianic Jew; I’ve been part of both
messianic congregations and mainstream churches. I have studied at a
Reformed seminary, I learned my basic New Testament as a young
believer from a Catholic priest, and I have had many conversations at
Hillel in college and over the years during my studies of Judaism and
Jewish literature. I have no Protestant grist in my mill to grind about the
solas.
My comment: Why do I see danger signs blaring loudly when I read material published by the First Fruits of Zion (Torah Clubs)? If you we a pastor, and learned about a 'Bible study group' from an organization that believes these things about the Church, wouldn't you be?
