The Five Solas

[David Lamb]

I have always understood the Reformed Baptists to be "reformed" in the word's specific sense of "Calvinistic" (five points) rather in its general sense of "Protestant" (five solas).

I am sure some people will tire of me saying this, but the only reason for the "5 Points" of Calvinism was that they were written in answer to 5 points issued by the followers of Arminius.

Also, there are plenty of people/churches/denominations in protestentism who do not hold to the 5 solas. There are protestant churches which teach baptismal regeneration, for instance.

 

[Jerome]

The solas were the distinguishing principles of the Reformers with regards to Roman Catholicism.
It is less than accurate to imply that being a "Reformed Baptist" merely means that you are a Baptist who agrees with the Reformers' criticisms of Roman Catholicism.
All Baptists are "Reformed Baptists," if that is the case.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"The name of Reformed Church(es) sometimes includes all the Protestant churches, and sometimes is specifically restricted to the Calvinistic bodies"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The solas were the distinguishing principles of the Reformers with regards to Roman Catholicism.
It is less than accurate to imply that being a "Reformed Baptist" merely means that you are a Baptist who agrees with the Reformers' criticisms of Roman Catholicism.
All Baptists are "Reformed Baptists," if that is the case.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"The name of Reformed Church(es) sometimes includes all the Protestant churches, and sometimes is specifically restricted to the Calvinistic bodies"

Ok. So all Baptists are Reformed. lol

Just a side note. words are symbols that represent realities. They have denotative (definitional) and connotative (implied) meanings. For human beings to communicate they must share meaning. It is helpful when communicating with folks to understand that the terms they use may be under a connotative meaning (which is relative) and not the denotative meaning (which is universally agreed upon, as in a dictionary).

 

[Jerome]

So being a "Reformed" Baptist entails much more than adherence to the five solas.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So being a "Reformed" Baptist entails much more than adherence to the five solas.

Some take it mean we are calvinists. Some that we reject dispensationalism and hold to Covenant Theology. For me it means that I am a member of a Church that is Calvinist, Covenantal, and agree with the 5 solas. Baptist regards church government and baptism.

I use the term Reformed Baptist because it makes it easy for others to know what i believe. Also, Reformed Baptists have a common confession of faith, the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. I will post a thread with a more detailed explaination.

 

[Jerome]

I am aware of what Reformed Baptists believe.
As you just wrote, for Reformed Baptists, "Reformed" is much more than the five solas, which is why I found the OP puzzling:

Our church's website has a section called "The Reformed Faith" in order to explain the 5 solas and why we call ourselves "reformed" Baptists.

 

[TCGreek]

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?

1. I don't know, since it has that sacramental ring to it.

2. By "the work of the Spirit through the Word, mediating the Supper" I mean that as the believer shares in the Supper, the meaning of the Supper has to come through the Spirit's use of the Word, giving the signifance of it.

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"

3. Correct, so "feed on Christ" is seen as a vivid metaphor of this communion of the blood and body of Christ, thereby strengthen the believer's faith.

 

[MB]

Hi RB,

I. Sola Scriptura ("Scripture Alone"). The Lord Jesus Christ alone is the unrivaled Head of His church, and He shares His throne with no man; even if that man is a pastor, priest, or pope. King Jesus exercises His rule over His church by His Holy Spirit through His Holy Word. Therefore the Protestant Reformers insisted upon the sole authority of Holy Scripture to bind the consciences of men. Although God does empower a plurality of men known as "elders" to shepherd each local church, their authority must always be exercised under the authority of Christ and His Word, to which nothing may be added or taken away.

How can the reformed position claim sola scriptura and claim that man is regenerated with out belief or faith first? Scripture never states or indicates such a thing. Scripture alone to me means with out other influence. This isn't so with the reformed position. The doctrines of grace aren't found in scripture. Nor is there anything that points to them at all.

We are in fact saved by grace through faith. IOW's, no faith, no grace. I agree that the whole process of Salvation is dependant on Jesus Christ. Our drawing, our calling, our conviction, and convincing, is all dependant on Him. Even His blessed name means Salvation. Yet at the same time no one is ever saved who isn't willing to believe first.
Paul said,
2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
(Note; this doesn't say man is accepted with out his being willing.)

Man must be willing or there is no Salvation. Of course we are still in our sins at the moment of Salvation. Salvation begins at the willing heart. First man believes yet even mans own faith doesn't save him.

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We aren't justified by our faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
It is the blood of the Lamb that washes us clean from sin. That blood is the faith of Jesus Christ. Therefore Salvation is all of God.
MB

 

[webdog]

How can the reformed position claim sola scriptura and claim that man is regenerated with out belief or faith first? Scripture never states or indicates such a thing. Scripture alone to me means with out other influence. This isn't so with the reformed position. The doctrines of grace aren't found in scripture. Nor is there anything that points to them at all.

You bring up an excellent point. Many "reformed" beliefs hinge on logical conclusions to truths found in Scripture either by way of not being in the correct context, reading into immutable truths the converse and inverse as also holding immutable truths, and the exegesis of other reformers.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hi RB,

How can the reformed position claim sola scriptura and claim that man is regenerated with out belief or faith first? Scripture never states or indicates such a thing. Scripture alone to me means with out other influence. This isn't so with the reformed position. The doctrines of grace aren't found in scripture. Nor is there anything that points to them at all.

What Scripture alone means to you is not the Reformed position of Sola Scriptura.

One proposition derserves another: The doctrines of grace are found in Scripture. THere are many Scriptures that points to them all.

We are in fact saved by grace through faith. IOW's, no faith, no grace. I agree that the whole process of Salvation is dependant on Jesus Christ. Our drawing, our calling, our conviction, and convincing, is all dependant on Him. Even His blessed name means Salvation. Yet at the same time no one is ever saved who isn't willing to believe first.
Paul said,
2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.
(Note; this doesn't say man is accepted with out his being willing.)

Friend, citing 2 Cor 8:12 as a proof text that man must be willing before he can be saved is a great wresting of this text from its context. The Apostle of speaking of the Corinthian's willingness to give a monetary gift. Therefore, your text does not teach what you are affirming.

[

COLOR=darkslategray]Man must be willing or there is no Salvation. Of course we are still in our sins at the moment of Salvation. Salvation begins at the willing heart. First man believes yet even mans own faith doesn't save him.[/COLOR]

God is able, and does, make man willing in the day of His power. Psalm 110:3 God is Sovereign over the will of man, and may dispose of it as He pleases. Prov 21:1

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

We aren't justified by our faith but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
It is the blood of the Lamb that washes us clean from sin. That blood is the faith of Jesus Christ. Therefore Salvation is all of God.
MB

Salvation is indeed all of God, from first to last. Salvation is of the Lord. Jonah 2:9

And if of the Lord, then it is NOT "..of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Which seems contradictory to what your saying that it is of man that wills. But you are affirming Salvation is all of God. Hallelujah.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You bring up an excellent point. Many "reformed" beliefs hinge on logical conclusions to truths found in Scripture either by way of not being in the correct context, reading into immutable truths the converse and inverse as also holding immutable truths, and the exegesis of other reformers.

Can you prove this? I mean, if "reformed" beliefs are nothing more than logical conclusions, i.e. rationalizations, of the truth(s) of Scripture then at least do us the honor of providing some proof.

And please explain, "reading into immutable truths the converse and inverse as also holding immutable truths" It is confusing to me.

Also, why should I accept your exegesis over another, reformed or no? What exegesis have you provided to refute these reformed positions you have affirmed ot believe?

 

[saturneptune]

RB,
Would you please post what your idea of the difference between TULIP and the 5 Solas are? I keep reading the TULIP is more definitive, but do not see that in the readings.

 

[webdog]

Can you prove this? I mean, if "reformed" beliefs are nothing more than logical conclusions, i.e. rationalizations, of the truth(s) of Scripture then at least do us the honor of providing some proof.

Did you miss the "many reformed..."? Please, at least quote me accurately.
Logical conclusions below...

And please explain, "reading into immutable truths the converse and inverse as also holding immutable truths" It is confusing to me.

John 6:44-45 is a perfect example. We know what It states. What calvinism reads from (rather into) that is the fact those who aren't raised up and given were never drawn. This is a false conclusion based on constructing a faux immutable truth statement from the converse of a given immutable truth statment.

Also, why should I accept your exegesis over another, reformed or no? What exegesis have you provided to refute these reformed positions you have affirmed ot believe?

Let me ask it like this: What exegesis of any non reformed, non calvinist do you accept over a reformed theologian? You have been given plenty of accurate exegesis from Allan, IMO. Could you ever hold his exegesis over that of Pink, Gill, etc.?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,
Would you please post what your idea of the difference between TULIP and the 5 Solas are? I keep reading the TULIP is more definitive, but do not see that in the readings.

Without making a long post, the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) is a modern day rendering of a response to James Harmensen (in Latin, Arminius) who presented five points to his church (Presbyterian Church of Holland) and its scholarship. Arminus was a preacher and professor. Arminius had 5 points of objections against the doctrines of his own church and was required to present them to the States General (our understanding would be Federal Congress, church and state were united in those days). The doctrines were Original sin, unconditional predestination, invincible grace in conversion, particular redemption, and perseverance of saints.

The "five points of calvinism" as they have become called much later than this period were teh response from a general council that was called in which all the Presbyterian churches came together to give an answer, which is known as the Synod of Dort. This took place in 1618 and the Synod convened with the rule that all human philosophy and opinion be left out and that the Word of God would be the sole authority. The result was a short set of articles, 18 in all, and can be read here http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...w.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html

The five solas of the reformation represent the reformer's basic beliefs over and against the Roman Catholic Church. They are the meat so to speak of the Reformation and its protest against false and anti-christianity.

 

[webdog]

I'm curious about something. If Arminius' five points were a response to his church...and Calvin's five points were a response to Arminius...isn't Arminius' five points basically an answer to Calvin's, who put into five points what the church believed?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Did you miss the "many reformed..."? Please, at least quote me accurately.
Logical conclusions below...

I didn't mean to misquote you. Apologies.

John 6:44-45 is a perfect example. We know what It states. What calvinism reads from (rather into) that is the fact those who aren't raised up and given were never drawn. This is a false conclusion based on constructing a faux immutable truth statement from the converse of a given immutable truth statment.

I followed you right up to the word "faux" I have faux wood blinds in my house, which are fake wood. immutable means unable to change. So, I understand the terminology, but I have no clue what your sentence means.

Let me ask it like this: What exegesis of any non reformed, non calvinist do you accept over a reformed theologian? You have been given plenty of accurate exegesis from Allan, IMO. Could you ever hold his exegesis over that of Pink, Gill, etc.?

It would be silly to say Wesley is correct on free-will and so is Whitefield. Their views were in opposition to each other. Allan and I seem to be in agreement on more than we are in disagreement. Without any offense intended, he is a very calvnistic arminian, to use the terminology.

The last question seems a bit "barbed" as if I hold other's views because they are other's views. You have read my post on the word Kosmos and saw my disagreement with a particular point of Pink. I have not read everthing John Gill has written, but I have found little I disagree with.

I am not a seminary trained man, and don't claim to be one. I have looked at what seminaries use to train their students and have filled my library with those books and read them. Nearly everything I have is evangelical and reformed. I used to have the works of Arminius for reference but I can get them online so I sold the set to make space on my shelves. Studying theology is one of the greatest joys of my life. I absolutely prefer the work of the reformers because its exigetical in nature. I generally don't spend too much time on modern works as they are fairly weak. The older works, pre-1900s are much more thorough, lenghty, et. I mean no disrespect to men od has raised up today and have done superb work, such as Martin Lloyd-Jones and others.

I see no ill done to me be to be a ruth and glean from Boaz.

 

[webdog]

I followed you right up to the word "faux" I have faux wood blinds in my house, which are fake wood. immutable means unable to change. So, I understand the terminology, but I have no clue what your sentence means.

Let me give you an analogy. Assume this statment is an immutable one: "everyone who attends my church loves fried chicken" (SBC...you know? )

Now tell me if this statment derived from the above is also immutable truth:
"Everyone who loves fried chicken attends my church" or even "everyone who doesn't attend my church hates fried chicken". These are the inverse and converse of the above fictional immutable truth statment. These are false conclusions based off a true one.

I believe Calvinism does that with many Scriptures, John 6:44-45 being one instance. All that come to Christ are drawn...not all that don't come to Christ were never drawn.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I'm curious about something. If Arminius' five points were a response to his church...and Calvin's five points were a response to Arminius...isn't Arminius' five points basically an answer to Calvin's, who put into five points what the church believed?

Arminius' five points were not a response to his church, but a challenge to it, in opposition to it. The church responded to Arminius who departed from his church's confession and doctrines. John Calvin died in 1564 before the Synod of Dort convened to give an answer (not just to Arminius) but to all the churches and set a standard according to the Word of God.

The Articles were 18 in number. The five points are a summary of them. I failed to mention that Arminius had died in 1609 before the Synod had met. Those who agreed with Arminius carried on with it, and presented the 5 articles or points of contention. This was known as the Remonstrance. Eight years later the Synod met and rejected the five points.

 

[webdog]

Arminius' five points were not a response to his church, but a challenge to it, in opposition to it. The church responded to Arminius who departed from his church's confession and doctrines. John Calvin died in 1564 before the Synod of Dort convened to give an answer (not just to Arminius) but to all the churches and set a standard according to the Word of God.

The Articles were 18 in number. The five points are a summary of them. I failed to mention that Arminius had died in 1609 before the Synod had met. Those who agreed with Arminius carried on with it, and presented the 5 articles or points of contention. This was known as the Remonstrance. Eight years later the Synod met and rejected the five points.

Thanks.

But, still, it seems to me that...
Arminius doesn't agree with church
Calvin doesn't agree with Arminius
Therefore Calvin agrees with the church
Arminius' response is essentially a response in prinicipal to Calvin

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Let me give you an analogy. Assume this statment is an immutable one: "everyone who attends my church loves fried chicken" (SBC...you know? )

Now tell me if this statment derived from the above is also immutable truth:
"Everyone who loves fried chicken attends my church" or even "everyone who doesn't attend my church hates fried chicken". These are the inverse and converse of the above fictional immutable truth statment. These are false conclusions based off a true one.

I believe Calvinism does that with many Scriptures, John 6:44-45 being one instance. All that come to Christ are drawn...not all that don't come to Christ were never drawn.

The illustration helped. Thanks. Can you show where "Calvinism" did this with John 6:44-45. Not where a Calvinist here or there did it, but where Calvinism did it. Given that we are discussing also the Synod of dort, the Synod's articles would be definitive for "calvinism" or any other reputable Calvinist.

Thanks.