The Five Solas

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

I have a question on this --

How is this "whenever," this "moment," and "from then onward" determined? To me, that would be the only question. If God alone gives faith/salvation/regeneration, there may seemingly be no coinciding "moment" of personal knowledge of salvatoin. If that is so, wouldn't it be like not being born -- or still born?

I absolutely agree that there is such a moment. I just do not see your "solas" description of that moment as nebulous. Does it take years to get to that moment? Is there something by which that moment is personally designate recognized?

I also agree that the "solas" DO bring us a long way toward unity if practiced as it is preached!

skypair

If I understand your question correctly, the moment would be when a person savingly repents and believes the Gospel. God alone does give faith/salvation/regeneration. It is of grace. It is impossible that a person would have this "moment" apart from their knowledge. We are saved by grace through faith. No one is saved and doesn't know it. No one has eternal life and does not know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. No one has the Spirit of Christ in them and doesn't have the witness in himself.

 

[skypair]

If I understand your question correctly, the moment would be when a person savingly repents and believes the Gospel. God alone does give faith/salvation/regeneration. It is of grace. It is impossible that a person would have this "moment" apart from their knowledge. We are saved by grace through faith. No one is saved and doesn't know it. No one has eternal life and does not know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. No one has the Spirit of Christ in them and doesn't have the witness in himself.

EXCELLENT!! Rom 10:9-10, right? Do you call that a "decision?" How does a person come to that decision and that act of repenting? Obviously by the hearing of the "Gospel" you mention, right?

What in the gospel is "irresistible" to one person and not another? It's not truly the gospel that is irresistible but something in the person, right? It is the personal "processing" of what the Spirit is saying that determines the decision to believe or reject, no? Salvation hinges on a personal decision and not any new awareness that one is already "born again," right?

Please explain to me your rejection of the believe -- repent -- receive faith/regeneration/salvation decisional model.

skypair

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

RB,
I don't think I am establishing (or attempting to establish) a false dichotomy. Baptists have historically considered themselves to be people of the NT. Our church officers are not patterned after the OT (for instance, we have no priesthood as an office) but are patterned after the NT where we find the unique offices of pastor and deacon. Our ordinances are not OT ordinances but they are the uniquely NT ordinances of Lord's supper and emersion. While all scripture is profitable, as you have quoted, much of the OT instruction about daily living and worship is simply not valid today. It has been superceded by the revelation of Jesus Christ and his fulfillment of the Old Covenant and the authoritative writings of the apostles and their associates in the New Testament.

The Roman Catholic Church does not make this distinction between the Old and New Testament. This is why they have a priestly office and it is why, in their Eucharist, they continually sacrifice the body and blood of Christ. The reformers are fuzzy on this point, which is why some reformed churches still have priesthoods and why some view the elements in communion too literally. Baptists historically have made a clear distinction in this area and we pattern ourselves after the NT exclusively. It is the NT that is our rule of faith and practice. Not that we have achieved perfection, of course, but we do recognize the proper ideal.

The office of Pastor did not begin in the NT. You may want to do a word study on that. And it is in error that much of the OT worship is not valid today. Prayer is still valid, praise, hymns, humble prostration before God, service are all valid forms of worship.

Blood sacrifice of animals has been done away with. That is because it was a forshadowing of the cross. Where they had the passover feast we have the Lord's Supper. Baptism is still in operation. The truth is not much was doen away with however the form in whcih we do it may differ while the spirit of worship is still the same. Nothing in the OT has been supersceded by the NT but again some things have taken on a different form.

And Israel has not been replaced.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

EXCELLENT!! Rom 10:9-10, right? Do you call that a "decision?" How does a person come to that decision and that act of repenting? Obviously by the hearing of the "Gospel" you mention, right?

What in the gospel is "irresistible" to one person and not another? It's not truly the gospel that is irresistible but something in the person, right? It is the personal "processing" of what the Spirit is saying that determines the decision to believe or reject, no? Salvation hinges on a personal decision and not any new awareness that one is already "born again," right?

Please explain to me your rejection of the believe -- repent -- receive faith/regeneration/salvation decisional model.

skypair

I am actually taking some encourgement here skypair. I assume by your excited response that you can see that I, a convinced Calvinist, does not believe a person is saved with repentance and faith in Christ Jesus, as sometimes we may be misunderstood as saying when we highlight the Sovereignty of God in salvation.

You ask what in the Gospel is irresitable to one and not to another. I think that is a great question. We could also ask, that in observance of many, say in a large congregation, who weekly hear the Gospel of Christ preached, why is one caught in its net and not another. Why does one hearing the warnings of wrath and the mercy of God tremble in the souls and seek Christ in repentance and faith and are born again, and another does not?

What you are saying is that the new birth hinges on a person's decision. This is DR. But this cannot be case because of Scriptures teaching on the inability of man to come to Jesus and believe. How is it then? There is an outward call which is universal, and an inward calling which is effectual. It is with those who were given by the Father to the Son that SHALL come. I hope we moved beyond the misunderstanding that God forcing anyone or believing for them. There is a birth, a spiritual birth, wrought in man by God alone. Which the Scriptures teaches explicitly is not done by the will of man. It is not his descision. But the Scirpture teaches it is done by the will of God. When God does this work in man, he repents and believes the Gospel.

 

[swaimj]

RB said:

...you think they were fuzzy on it (communion). I always thought they were pretty clear. The Lutherans have seemed closer to Rome than others, but wholly denying transubstantiation. Other Reformed churches call it a sacrament and a means of grace.

How can you say that the reformers are clear on the Lord's supper when different ones maintain different positions and when you confess that one of the positions some hold (the bread and cup are a "means of grace") you do not understand? I described their position as "fuzzy" and your description of their position seems to fit this characterization. The meaning of the bread and cup is a MAJOR issue of the reformation and most baptists disagree with protestant reformed positions on this. It leaves me wondering why you call yourself a reformed baptist; in fact, I'm not sure there can even BE such a thing.

II Tim 1 said:

The office of Pastor did not begin in the NT. You may want to do a word study on that.

Sorry. I don't have time to do a word study. If you have a position that you want to state and defend, help yourself.
II Tim 1 also said

Blood sacrifice of animals has been done away with.

Then he said

Nothing in the OT has been supersceded by the NT

These two statements, which you made within spittiing distance of each other, are a complete contradiction. Christ's blood FAR SUPERSEEDS the blood of bulls and goats!

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How can you say that the reformers are clear on the Lord's supper when different ones maintain different positions and when you confess that one of the positions some hold (the bread and cup are a "means of grace") you do not understand? I described their position as "fuzzy" and your description of their position seems to fit this characterization. The meaning of the bread and cup is a MAJOR issue of the reformation and most baptists disagree with protestant reformed positions on this. It leaves me wondering why you call yourself a reformed baptist; in fact, I'm not sure there can even BE such a thing.

The reason I can say they are clear on their views is because I read them. Entire volumes have been written by them on the subject, and not a few Systematic Theology works are available to all to know what they mean. Perhaps we misunderstood each other here.

When I say I do not understand what they mean by means of grace I meant that perhaps I do not understand their meaning. This is not double-speak. The reformers have taken great care in explaining themselves. I am allowing that what I understand of their teaching, I may have misunderstood. But it does seem clear to me that they are teaching that through the elements by some mystical process grace is conferred to the communicant. I just don't see this in Scripture.

I am a Refomed Baptist because of the reasons outlined in the OP. I do not have to believe every single doctrine of the Reformers to be considered reformed. Likewise, I don't have to espouse everything John Calvin taught and believed to feel it an injustice to be called a Calvinist. When somone calls me that I do not take an offense because I know they mean that I believe 5 particular points of doctrine, not that I am a disciple of John Calvin. Same reasoning for the Reformation.

Some Presbyterians would agree with you that we can't be Reformed and be Baptist. I think this line of argument/debate produces division. Rather, let us ask, "If you call yourself a Reformed Baptist, what do you mean by that? Why would you wish to be identified that way?"

And let them define their terms.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Blood sacrifice of animals has been done away with.

Nothing in the OT has been supersceded by the NT

These two statements, which you made within spittiing distance of each other, are a complete contradiction. Christ's blood FAR SUPERSEEDS the blood of bulls and goats!

Ah yes, the convolution and contradictions inevitable in Reformed Theology. Excellent observation!:thumbs:

 

[npetreley]

Ah yes, the convolution and contradictions inevitable in Reformed Theology. Excellent observation!:thumbs:

I could be wrong, but I believe 2 Timothy defends free will, not calvinism/reformed theology. If I have that incorrect, I apologize. If I am correct, are you going to switch sides and defend him? Or are these contradictions and convolutions evidence of free-will theology?

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

I could be wrong, but I believe 2 Timothy defends free will, not calvinism/reformed theology. If I have that incorrect, I apologize. If I am correct, are you going to switch sides and defend him? Or are these contradictions and convolutions evidence of free-will theology?

The mistake is to believe I am defending a PERSON. If a cow says the sky is blue and it is, I will acknowledge the cow is right, on that occasion. If my best friend and theological companion concludes that the Trinity is a wrong doctrine, I will disagree with him on that occasion. I am not here for sides, I am here for the truth. These two statements:

Blood sacrifice of animals has been done away with.

Nothing in the OT has been supersceded by the NT

are reflective of the invetiable convolution and contradiction inherent in Reformed Theology.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The mistake is to believe I am defending a PERSON. If a cow says the sky is blue and it is, I will acknowledge the cow is right, on that occasion. If my best friend and theological companion concludes that the Trinity is a wrong doctrine, I will disagree with him on that occasion. I am not here for sides, I am here for the truth.

I see in this statement so much of me. And in how you seek to defend the truth. To share a personal testimony, the Lord corrected my thinking in this regard because in my zeal and love of truth I was trampling my brothers for whom Christ died. I had thought myself a great defender of truth but had not love in what I was doing.

The Lord had taught me that if I am to engage a controversy with someone, then my motives should begin with genuine love of God and His glory. From that should spring a genuine love for my brother, if he/she be the one I am in controversy with, and a desire for their good above all things, especially being right.

When I fought for truth in times past I did so because I wanted to be right. This, for me, was vain and prideful. It was evidenced that when I did win a debate, I rejoiced greatly, even when my oppenant when away unchanged.

John Bunyan characterized this by the character Valiant for Truth. It's worth taking a look at again.

 

[npetreley]

These two statements:

are reflective of the invetiable convolution and contradiction inherent in Reformed Theology.

Sorry, but it appears to me that you simply gave a knee-jerk reaction and tried to tie the contradition to a theology you hate. Can you explain the relationship between reformed theology and these two statements? Otherwise your comment is meaningless venom.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

Sorry, but it appears to me that you simply gave a knee-jerk reaction and tried to tie the contradition to a theology you hate. Can you explain the relationship between reformed theology and these two statements? Otherwise your comment is meaningless venom.

They were made by a proponent of Reformed Theology who was being quoted by another poster. SO maybe you can explain how Reformed Theology takes both of these positions...or did the person err in one or both of these statements? OR is the person NOT of the Reforme Persuasion and if not then of course I would have to withdraw my point.

P.S. Unless I personally state "I hate...thus and thus" You have neither the liberty or license to state it as such, especially in light of the principles of BIBLICAL liberty and license to which we are bound.

 

[npetreley]

They were made by a proponent of Reformed Theology who was being quoted by another poster. SO maybe you can explain how Reformed Theology takes both of these positions...or did the person err in one or both of these statements? OR is the person NOT of the Reforme Persuasion and if not then of course I would have to withdraw my point.

Withdraw your point, or change your stance and say it's a symptom of you own theology?

You see, you tripped just like everyone who is so filled with venom. You saw a contradiction and jumped on it in an attempt to use it to discredit a theology. You didn't even attempt to make a connection between the mistake and the theology. You simply saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, and you grabbed it without thinking.

God bless you, but I'm done with you.

 

[swaimj]

But it does seem clear to me that they are teaching that through the elements by some mystical process grace is conferred to the communicant. I just don't see this in Scripture.

I don't see this in scripture either. Grace is received by faith, not by eating or drinking a substance. Since I disagree with this reformed position I do not refer to myself as a reformed baptist (among other reasons). Their position decidedly disagrees with the historic baptist view.

 

[Alex Quackenbush]

You see, you tripped just like everyone who is so filled with venom. ...You simply saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, and you grabbed it without thinking.

God bless you, but I'm done with you.

This would be funny if it weren't so sad...You insult me, take a cheap shot, then complain I took a cheap shot and curse me and bless me out of the same mouth. :tonofbricks: Let's just stay on topic and stop the personal stuff...now.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't see this in scripture either. Grace is received by faith, not by eating or drinking a substance. Since I disagree with this reformed position I do not refer to myself as a reformed baptist (among other reasons). Their position decidedly disagrees with the historic baptist view.

Your right about it being in disagreement with the historic baptist view. My confession of faith teaches,

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

I looked back at your post and saw you said grace it recieved by faith. The confession is saying this here, but something that is happening during the communion. My only comparrison is hearing the word of God. I believe when we hear, read, sing the Word of God that through our faith the Holy Spirit is giving us grace to be encouraged, built up, sanctified, renewed in our minds, et. So we could say that the preaching of the Word of God is a means of God's grace to us. I think they are saying this is also true of the Lord's Table.

The Scripture support for the 1689 statement is:

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

And,

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

The context of the first verse was to admonish the Christians to keep themsevles from idolatry by not eating meat sacrificed to idols. A comparrison was made that Israel according to the flesh when they ate of sacrifices on the altar partook of the altar. And the concerning idols, the Apostle would not have us fellowship with devils.

So, without doubt the Lord's Table is a communion with the Lord, or Kononia. The definition of the Greek term is "fellowship, association, community, communion, joint participation, intercourse, intimacy."

Now if 1 Cor is teaching that the cup and bread are themselves the communion with Christ, and not just a represenation of it, then the 1689 is a true statement of the Scriptures, and I need to reform my view.

Thanks for bringing this point to bear. This is clear evidence of the benefit of these discussions when they provoke us to deeper study, and not just cause strife.

 

[TCGreek]

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

1. Submit that "the communion of the blood" ..."the communion of the body of Christ" are not faithful rendering of the Greek.

2. There's no definite article before either "communion of the blood" or "communion of the body."

3. Rather, the rendering should be "a communion of the blood of Christ" and "a communion of the body of Christ."

4. It is a sharing symbolically.

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

5. "In remembrance of me" views it as a memorial in which we sharing but symbolicly.

Now if 1 Cor is teaching that the cup and bread are themselves the communion with Christ, and not just a represenation of it, then the 1689 is a true statement of the Scriptures, and I need to reform my view.

Thanks for bringing this point to bear. This is clear evidence of the benefit of these discussions when they provoke us to deeper study, and not just cause strife.

6. The cup and bread are not the communion with Christ but a communion with Christ. There's a difference. The cup and the bread are not the only means of communing with Christ.

7. We commune with Christ through prayer and through the Spirit.

8. Rather, I see that through this Supper a mediation by the Word and the Spirit that takes place in the believer. The believers faith is strengthened as he reflects and as he looks forward; this strengthened of faith I propose is a work of the Spirit through the Word, mediating the Supper.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

8. Rather, I see that through this Supper a mediation by the Word and the Spirit that takes place in the believer. The believers faith is strengthened as he reflects and as he looks forward; this strengthened of faith I propose is a work of the Spirit through the Word, mediating the Supper.

Do you think this statement is the true sense of the confessions statement? Is this what they mean? And, what does it mean that it is a work of the Spirit through the Word, mediating the Supper?

Does that mean that God, because He ordained the ordinance, when we come together, by His Spirit and through the Word of God, ministers to us during the Supper? Is it proper that the confession says "feed on christ"

 

[skypair]

What you are saying is that the new birth hinges on a person's decision. This is DR. But this cannot be case because of Scriptures teaching on the inability of man to come to Jesus and believe.

See, right there's the problem. We need to get those verses in front of us and see if that is what scripture says about man's ability.

We've discussed 1Cor 2:14 only to discover that it speaks of the "hidden wisdom of God" that the "natural man" cannot hear. But the gospel is very simple and is precisely what got the Corinthians into the "net," 1Cor 2:1-6, so they would be "perfect"/spiritual men and would understand "hidden wisdom."

So what are some others? Here's what the Bible says: I say that 1Cor 15:1-4 argues for my side of the issue -- "which I preached... which you received... unto salvation." John 1:12 likewise. John 3:16 too -- "whosoever believeth in him should ... have everlasting life."

John 7:39 speaks of not receiving the Holy Ghost/regeneration until one believes - "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:..." There's NO regeneration before belief (and again I must insist that belief does NOT equal faith as these verses are showing.). There is no way to construe regeneration before belief though it does accompany faith.

Acts 10:43 -- "Whosoever believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins."

Acts 19 -- "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Here were JB's disciples -- wrong gospel - no help hearing from the Spirit -- believed once (JB's gospel) and believed again "in the name of Jesus" unto regeneration!

1Thes 2:13 is probably the closest Calvinism comes to being correct -- "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Sadly, some "hear" the word of God as if it were the word of men -- and don't believe. But most didn't have any trouble "hearing" it as the word of God. And believing, it worked "effectually" in them to bring forth faith if it is received as the word of God.

How is it then? There is an outward call which is universal, and an inward calling which is effectual. It is with those who were given by the Father to the Son that SHALL come.

See, this is still too "mystical." You have put "effectual calling" in a little "Pandora's box" that we have yet to see. You can't get at it. A would-be elect person can't get at it. How do we know what God expects? This description actually IS in the words of men but not in the word of God.

You say it happens that way but the salvation experience of anyone who is saved is not that they suddenly understood what they couldn't hear and understand the first or second time. All that I heard testimonies of were "convicted" by the Holy Spirit time and again before they decided these weren't the words of men but of God --- and then believed on Christ to save them. Based upon their decision to repent and receive, they were regenerated --- which totally changed their belief into faith. There are still things they/I only believe in cause we haven't experienced them yet -- like the rapture, a place in New Jerusalem, etc. -- but I KNOW, have faith in, my salvation because I obeyed the call to believe - repent - receive.

So please show me your "cards." What verses are you talking about that deny "decisional regeneration?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death;...

See, in the deluge of words, the real point is lost. The real point is that you believe that you partake of the blood and body of Christ and particularly of Him crucified. And 'all the benefits' thereof speak to me of His forgiving your sins again -- Him being "crucified afresh."

In Baptist Communion, the wine represents His blood which we, by partaking, testify to our salvation through His death. The bread represents His life which we, by partaking worthily, testify that we are living day-to-day His life in His place on this earth.

The reason many are "sick and sleep" is not because the elements are "mystical medicine." It's because they WEREN'T living Christ's life -- their testimony was a lie -- and no one ever "waited on [them] and washed their feet to show them their secret faults or put them to account for their known sin. If we remember the original feast, Jesus was quite blunt with Judas about his betrayal and Judas had 2 options: repent and stay or "do what thou doest quickly" and miss the Lord's Supper (not being worthy). Yes, it is a "love feast" but Baptists tend to have it at evening services "for members only" (closed communion) not wanting to embarrass those who don't know its meaning.

the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. ( 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 )

Consubstantiation, I believe they call it? They still use words like "His body indeed" and "His blood indeed" as if "grace" could become a physical part of those who partake. Thankfully, they don't bow down to the elements as their MOTHER does.

skypair