The Five Solas

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).

 

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.

 

Hi RB,

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.

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.

[

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

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

I didn't mean to misquote you. Apologies.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.