The Five Solas of the Reformation

Tuesday will mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. One way of focusing on the key truths recovered by the Reformers is looking at what has come to be known as the “Five Solas.” These truths are pictured below and represented by the following Latin phrases: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria.

The following points are adapted from part 5 of my teaching series: “A Survey of the Reformation: Its History and Doctrine” which is available for free download here.

∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼ ∼

Scripture Alone

  • The Scripture was liberated for the common people.
  • Reformers insisted on Scripture’s supreme authority. [Scripture has final say over church tradition, but the Reformers still appreciated much that the Church Fathers and the ecumenical Church councils had agreed on (e.g., the orthodox statements on the Trinity and the Deity of Christ, for instance).]
  • Scripture was held as infallible and inerrant.
  • Scripture was preached — preaching and Scripture reading took pride of place in the “order of worship.”

Faith Alone

  • Faith, not works, is the condition for justification.
  • Faith provides an “alien righteousness” –the works of Christ on our behalf (active and passive).
  • Justification by faith is a gift of God — and was absolutely essential to the Reformation.
  • Justification declares us righteous, it doesn’t start the process of making us righteous (sanctification).
  • However, we are justified by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone. (No place for “easy-believism”).
  • Helpful quote: “Where there is true faith, works necessarily result, just as fire necessarily brings with it heat.” (Swiss Reformer, Ulrich Zwingli)

Grace Alone

  • Grace didn’t just enable man to “pull himself up by his bootstraps.”
  • Grace for the Reformers, was Sovereign
  • Helpful definition: “the free favour of God… conferred… upon the unworthy.” (19th Century Calvinistic Baptist, William Newman)
  • Grace = “unmerited favor”
  • God’s Riches AChrist’s Expense
  • Grace calls us (Gal. 1:15), regenerates us (Titus 3:5), justifies us (Rom. 3:24), sanctifies us (Heb. 13:20-21), and preserves us (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

Christ Alone

  • The Church does not dispense salvation, Jesus does –Acts 4:12.
  • Mary & the Saints are not the mediator, Jesus is the only mediator –1 Tim. 2:5.
  • The Cross-work of Christ is sufficient for all the merit needed for salvation –Christ is “our righteousness.”
  • The Cross-work of Christ is not repeated, but a finished work (no “re-run” of Christ’s sacrifice in the Mass).
  • Christ’s righteousness was both passive (submitting to death for us) and active (life that pleased God).
  • Today, we need to remember that Christ alone is where salvation is to be found –not in other religions or philosophies (contra postmodernism and pluralism).

God’s Glory Alone

  • Hebrew word for glory is: kabod = “weight
  • Greek word for glory is: δοξα = “opinion”.
  • Definition: “value or worth, intrinsic to something and the value we externally place on it (in worship).”
  • God’s goal is to manifest His glory.
  • Helpful summary: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 1)
  • God is the one who gets glory in the work of salvation – not man, Mary, the saints, or the Church.

Deuteronomy 22:5 — A Positive Interpretation

In the comments of my recent post on the women-wearing-pants controversy, I was challenged to basically prove my position is a legitimate positive interpretation rather than a mere reaction. To boil down the issue, fundamentalists often use Deut. 22:5 to teach that it is wrong for women today to wear pants. My position is that the text teaches that there is to be a designed gender distinction in the way we dress, but that today there are female-designed pants perfectly suitable for women to wear in most situations. (I do think women should wear dresses from time to time, as they are so expressly and beautifully feminine.)

In responding to that charge, I came across the following excellent treatment of the issue from Elmer L. Towns (former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University) in the King James Bible Commentary (edited by Edward Hindson, Woodrow Kroll & Jerry Falwell; Thomas Nelson: Nashville, 1983).

Verse 5 has caused divisions and confusion among sincere Christian brethren. Some have used this verse to maintain that women should not wear slacks. The word “pertaineth unto” (Heb keli) in the original language is used elsewhere not only of clothes, but also of decorations or utensils used by the opposite sex. The intent of this law was to maintain the distinction between the sexes. Today, it would apply to any unisex clothing that would cloud the distinction between men and women. The New Testament recognizes such a distinction (1 Cor. 11:3) and maintains that long hair on women was a sign of that distinction (1 Cor. 11:6-14). During the days of Moses, garments (Heb simlah) worn by men and women were similar (robes), so this command was designed to keep a woman from appearing as a man for purposes of licentiousness (to deceive the man). The major difference between male and female robes was their decoration or ornamentation, and not their cut. The principle taught by this passage is that the proper distinction between men and women in all cultures should be maintained. The passage does not teach against slacks per se (or hats, shoes, gloves, etc.–all worn by both sexes), but against men or women wearing any item specifically ornamented for the opposite sex (e.g., a man wearing female slacks, lipstick, etc.). The wearing of slacks by ladies today is not an attempt to deceive men, although some may be immodest and improper in certain situations. The final crieteria are that women look like females, that they are modest (1 Tim 2:9-10), and that their outward appearance reflects their inner character (1 Pet 3:3). ¹

 ¹ Pg. 168. Words in quotation marks are bolded in the original.

I also want to mention another good article on this issue that I came across: “Is It a Sin for a Woman to Wear Pants?” by Craig Hostetler.