The Five Solas

[ReformedBaptist]

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 essentiall a response in prinicipal to Calvin

Nope. If I go to a Reformed Baptist seminary, graduate, take a pastorate and a professorship, and the church is confessional, I must give my assent to the confession. Arminius did (of his church, denomination), and departed from it.

 

[saturneptune]

RB,
thank you

 

[skypair]

Studying theology is one of the greatest joys of my life.

Well, that explains the gaps in your knowledge regarding soul vs. spirit, biblical sotierology, sin nature, God's sovereignty, belief vs. faith, justificatoin vs. sanctification, etc.! I suppose that is why we often see your responses are quotes from your "heroes" in the faith who were hot in the fray but fought with crude weapons.

Studying the BIBLE is mine, BTW -- eschatology and sotierology especially.

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.

Actually, I guess it's going to surprise you to know that beginning with Origen until the 1900's, biblical scholars took much of scripture allegorically. Only when the literal-historical became the norm did we discover a number of the truths that we take for granted today. Hence, the older the scource, the more likely it is flawed!

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 obviously wouldn't have such respect for any of them. I can't come to their conclusions by my study of the Bible. Again I say --- the vocabulary they impose on the scriptures ought to be a "red flag" that this is MEN'S teachings, not God's. God wrote the Bible to reveal -- these men write of it as if God meant to conceal.

skypair

 

[skypair]

RB: Some reason you're not responding to this?

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.


.....

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

 

[David Lamb]

Well, that explains the gaps in your knowledge regarding soul vs. spirit, biblical sotierology, sin nature, God's sovereignty, belief vs. faith, justificatoin vs. sanctification, etc.! I suppose that is why we often see your responses are quotes from your "heroes" in the faith who were hot in the fray but fought with crude weapons.

Studying the BIBLE is mine, BTW -- eschatology and sotierology especially.


skypair

But "Theology" means "Words about God". Soteriology and eschatolgy are part of biblical theology. Would you have been happier if RB had inserted that adjective "biblical" before "theology"? From what I have seen of him on the BB, I am sure he did not mean that he got great joy from the study of "unbiblical theology".

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, that explains the gaps in your knowledge regarding soul vs. spirit, biblical sotierology, sin nature, God's sovereignty, belief vs. faith, justificatoin vs. sanctification, etc.! I suppose that is why we often see your responses are quotes from your "heroes" in the faith who were hot in the fray but fought with crude weapons.

I am really getting tired of this. I wish I had David Lamb's patience in these things. How do you it brother? I feel in me a tendency to take a harsher tone, but I will restrain for now.

The contradiction in what your saying is so glaring I am amazed you don't see it. I am not going to rehash why I quote biblical scholars/preachers/theologians again. Go back and read my other post on that. You blast me for saying I love to study theology but then use theological eterms like eschatology and soteriolgy.

Studying the BIBLE is mine, BTW -- eschatology and sotierology especially.

My point proven.

Actually, I guess it's going to surprise you to know that beginning with Origen until the 1900's, biblical scholars took much of scripture allegorically. Only when the literal-historical became the norm did we discover a number of the truths that we take for granted today. Hence, the older the scource, the more likely it is flawed!

This one is for you skypair with all the love in my heart:

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." Jer 6:16

"The old truth that Calvin preached, that Augustine preached, that Paul preached, is the truth that I must preach to-day, or else be false to my conscience and my God. I cannot shape the truth; I know of no such thing as paring off the rough edges of a doctrine. John Knox's gospel is my gospel. That which thundered through Scotland must thunder through England again."—C. H. Spurgeon

I obviously wouldn't have such respect for any of them. I can't come to their conclusions by my study of the Bible. Again I say --- the vocabulary they impose on the scriptures ought to be a "red flag" that this is MEN'S teachings, not God's. God wrote the Bible to reveal -- these men write of it as if God meant to conceal.

I hope you verbal disrespect for some of these men, who spilt their blood so you could have a Bible in English, extends only to where you disagree with them on points of doctrine.

 

[MB]

Hi RB,



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

Well this is what you posted the reform believe,

Therefore the Protestant Reformers insisted upon the sole authority of Holy Scripture to bind the consciences of men

The sole authority of scripture is exactly what I'm speaking about and by this reformers are suppose to go by scripture alone and not some logical conclusions. You say what it means to me isn't the same. Maybe you don't believe what that sola says.

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

Not with out the reformed logical conclusion. None of the doctrines of Grace are even hinted at, in scripture. Man is not totally depraved, or disabled from believing the first time they hear the scriptures preached. unconditional election is real but this isn't what the reformers teach. They teach a particular election which makes it very conditional. the atonement is not limited to just a few particular individuals. Irresistible grace isn't in scripture at all no where does it even hint that God only wants to save some and those have no choice. There is no perseverance of the saints. Salvation is never ending and complete from the beginning if the man's surrender is genuine. Simply God doesn't need those who aren't willing. There are plenty that are and they alone have the ability to Love God willingly. If man were made to then there love would not be genuine and original. The love would not be from man.

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.

If you won't accept 2 Cor 8:12 then How about this,

Joh 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

You will notice it says "If any man will" This is willingness of the man to Know of the doctrine of God.

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

Psa 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

You certainly have a peculiar way of reading Psa 110:3. It doesn't say that at all. For one thing I'm not a Jew nor am I a king.

Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

Salvation is indeed all of God, from first to last. Salvation is of the Lord. Jonah 2:9.
Jon 2:9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.
You will notice Jonah says "but I will" Indicating his willingness to comply with God's wishes. This will is why the Christian still sins and he knows he can sin anytime he wants to. It's interesting you might not have taken in the whole verse. Especially the vow.

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.[/quote]


Salvation is all of God I do not deny that at all, but man is not saved unless He is willing. It's the willingness of man to believe God's word that makes the theory of man being saved against his will not so. Man is saved by Grace but it is always through faith.

RB please read this again,
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.

You need to see that man's own belief is important though it doesn't save man. It only means that the man might be saved.
Man can't believe unless convinced by God. If convinced by God then man is saved but it is still God's choice not ours. If man had no choice to believe then explain how anyone could not believe. Do you really want to believe that God destroys most of man kind for no reason, that He could not have prevented?
MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

MB,

I could respond to each one of your statments one by one, but I can't see how that is going to help you or me yet. If I do, I would be glad to respond to each one. But this one is worth making mention of:

Salvation is all of God I do not deny that at all, but man is not saved unless He is willing.

To me this is a contradiction in terms, to me. I know it makes sense to you, so don't take me as saying your unintelligent. We both agree that Salvation is all of God. To Him be the glory alone.

I would submit to you that God is not hindered in His plans, purposes, and the salvation of souls, by the "almighty" will of man. Man is not sovereign over God in salvation, but God is sovereign over man. The salvation you descibed to me is to me a mere wish and possiblity of the Almighty, not the accomplishment of it. I do not see that kind of salvation in Holy Scripture.

 

[David Lamb]

None of the doctrines of Grace are even hinted at, in scripture.
MB

Just a few of the "hints" that the bible does indeed teach grace (and as I'm sure you know, "doctrine" is just another word for "teaching"):

Romans 11.5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.​

Ephesians 2.4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus​

Ac 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.​

I must say, grace is more than hinted at.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Just a few of the "hints" that the bible does indeed teach grace (and as I'm sure you know, "doctrine" is just another word for "teaching"):

Romans 11.5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.​

Ephesians 2.4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus​

Ac 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.​

I must say, grace is more than hinted at.

Nevermind. I read something wrong.

 

[MB]

Hi David,

Just a few of the "hints" that the bible does indeed teach grace (and as I'm sure you know, "doctrine" is just another word for "teaching"):

Romans 11.5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
​

Ephesians 2.4 ¶ But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus
​

Ac 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.​

I must say, grace is more than hinted at.

Grace is what saves us as I have explained to RB but it is always through faith. The whole reason for the favor of God in the first place is because of the man's Hope Of Salvation or simply faith. The doctrines of Grace for the reformed are the 5 points of the tulip none of these IMHO are in fact Graceful.
We wouldn't exist if were not for the Grace of God.
Scripture never says man can't hear the gospel until man is regenerated. Sure Christ questioned some Pharisee's on there hearing but that is not a reason to believe that all men can't hear as a result of the fall of Adam.

Grace is given and because of that grace we can be saved. This is not the same as the called doctrines of grace of the reformed view.
MB

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David,

Grace is what saves us as I have explained to RB but it is always through faith. The whole reason for the favor of God in the first place is because of the man's Hope Of Salvation or simply faith. The doctrines of Grace for the reformed are the 5 points of the tulip none of these IMHO are in fact Graceful.
We wouldn't exist if were not for the Grace of God.
Scripture never says man can't hear the gospel until man is regenerated. Sure Christ questioned some Pharisee's on there hearing but that is not a reason to believe that all men can't hear as a result of the fall of Adam.

Grace is given and because of that grace we can be saved. This is not the same as the called doctrines of grace of the reformed view.
MB

Sorry, that is just not the case. The Five Points of Calvinism are certainly not the whole of the doctrines of grace; they were simply a reply to some points previously brought up by the followers of Arminius.

You say that the Five Points are not "graceful", but they are. Which is a greater demonstration of God's undeserved favour? To say, "I am saved because I chose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," or to say, "There was nothing good in me to make me worth saving"?

And please don't be too inflenced by that TULIP. It only works in English, and it only makes a word if we call the third point "Limited Atonement", which gives the false impression that calvinists believe that only a few will be saved. "Particular Redemption" is a better and more accurate term, but "TUPIP" is not an English word, as far as I know.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sorry, that is just not the case. The Five Points of Calvinism are certainly not the whole of the doctrines of grace; they were simply a reply to some points previously brought up by the followers of Arminius.

You say that the Five Points are not "graceful", but they are. Which is a greater demonstration of God's undeserved favour? To say, "I am saved because I chose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," or to say, "There was nothing good in me to make me worth saving"?

And please don't be too inflenced by that TULIP. It only works in English, and it only makes a word if we call the third point "Limited Atonement", which gives the false impression that calvinists believe that only a few will be saved. "Particular Redemption" is a better and more accurate term, but "TUPIP" is not an English word, as far as I know.

I prefer the wording of Particular Redemption, and Unfrustratable Grace to Irresistable Grace, as the later may give the impression of force. I also prefer Total Inability, rather than depravity, but at least the T still works.

So I have a TUPUP, which is not an English word either.

 

[MB]

Sorry, that is just not the case. The Five Points of Calvinism are certainly not the whole of the doctrines of grace; they were simply a reply to some points previously brought up by the followers of Arminius.

Yes I'm aware of that but it is what gets quoted by reformers as there doctrine.

You say that the Five Points are not "graceful", but they are. Which is a greater demonstration of God's undeserved favour? To say, "I am saved because I chose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," or to say, "There was nothing good in me to make me worth saving"?

If you read my post you would have known I never said I'm saved because I believe. Nothing man does actually saves him. However willingness is a necessity. With out it you have forced Salvation and there simply isn't any such thing. Not that God is incapable of saving men with out there willingness. God is God the most high and He can do what ever He wishes and has done what He wished for man.
The reformed deny freewill yet sin anytime they want to just like everyone else. If not, then where are all those perfect reformers? There isn't anyone with out sin. If there is no freewill? This would make God a sinner because He made us all sin. God is not a sinner. However if He made us sin He would be guilty by conspiracy. There would be no one sinning with out freewill. Adam had freewill and He sinned we have freewill and we sin as well. We may all try to live according to God's word but no one does it with out sinning. If man has a choice to sin or not to sin then man has a choice of his own willingness to comply. You can't have choice with out alternatives

And please don't be too inflenced by that TULIP. It only works in English, and it only makes a word if we call the third point "Limited Atonement", which gives the false impression that calvinists believe that only a few will be saved. "Particular Redemption" is a better and more accurate term, but "TUPIP" is not an English word, as far as I know.

I believe that tulip is just a word, it's orgins I really have no idea of. You can call them what ever you want. As far as being influenced by them again this is a matter of the will. Can we be willing to be influenced by our reformed brothers.
MB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

MB,

I know your reply is to David Lamb, but this statement to him from you:

The reformed deny freewill

is pattenly false. I would encourage you to study what Reformed churches believe by looking to their confessions of faith and catechisms. They have detailed explainations on their understanding of free-will. I refer you to the Westminster Confession of Faith (presbyterian) and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Both those statements have a particular and detailed chapter on free-will. If you would like a more detailed and philospophical look at what Reformed people believe about free-will, I refer you to Jonathan Edwards work, "Freedom of the Will." It is representive of how Reformed people understand the nature of the human will, IMO.

I am sure you want to defend the truth as you understand it. And I don't think you want to lose credibility by inadvertantly misrepresenting what Reformed people believe.

 

[TCGreek]

Sorry, that is just not the case. The Five Points of Calvinism are certainly not the whole of the doctrines of grace; they were simply a reply to some points previously brought up by the followers of Arminius.

You say that the Five Points are not "graceful", but they are. Which is a greater demonstration of God's undeserved favour? To say, "I am saved because I chose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ," or to say, "There was nothing good in me to make me worth saving"?

And please don't be too inflenced by that TULIP. It only works in English, and it only makes a word if we call the third point "Limited Atonement", which gives the false impression that calvinists believe that only a few will be saved. "Particular Redemption" is a better and more accurate term, but "TUPIP" is not an English word, as far as I know.

1. It takes real care to correct the misgivings of Calvinism.

2. And why do folks think that the burden of proof is always on the Calvinist, I will never know?

 

[Rippon]

BTW , Just A Note

Someone said that the allegorical method wasn't abandoned until the 1900's ! Actually John Calvin ( 1509-1564 ) pioneered the exegetical method of biblical interpretation . So the poster was several centuries off . Nods should go to Martin Luther and others before Calvin's time also . And even though Augustine engaged in some allegory he wasn't as extreme as most of the Church Fathers .

 

[TCGreek]

Someone said that the allegorical method wasn't abandoned until the 1900's ! Actually John Calvin ( 1509-1564 ) pioneered the exegetical method of biblical interpretation . So the poster was several centuries off . Nods should go to Martin Luther and others before Calvin's time also . And even though Augustine engaged in some allegory he wasn't as extreme as most of the Church Fathers .

We need not ignore history. Thanks, Rippon.

 

[MB]

Hi TC,
I had a very good friend called TC once. His name was Terry Cody

1. It takes real care to correct the misgivings of Calvinism.

2. And why do folks think that the burden of proof is always on the Calvinist, I will never know?

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes the claim whether or not it's Calvinism.
MB

 

[skypair]

But "Theology" means "Words about God". Soteriology and eschatolgy are part of biblical theology. Would you have been happier if RB had inserted that adjective "biblical" before "theology"? From what I have seen of him on the BB, I am sure he did not mean that he got great joy from the study of "unbiblical theology".

I'm pickin' aren't I? I was simply meaning that theology is the "study of God," sure. But he's studying men's ideas from what I can tell. Just loves the older ones too. Did you read my critique in its entirety? Older theologians have problems just inherent in their studies.

skypair