There is possibly no better introduction to Christian theology than one that focuses on the Five Sola's of the Reformation, and if one is looking for a booklet that will take readers through the historical and Biblical foundations of each of the Five Sola's, look no farther than S.D. Ellison's 2020 publication, Five: The Solas of the Reformation.
First, we at Reformed Repute want to give a special thanks to Tulip Publishing, which has allowed us to come alongside them and review their latest releases. We love their work and encourage you to check them out!
The underlying issue in the Reformation was that of authority.
S.D. Ellison's Five is endorsed by noteworthy Christian historian Michael Haykin, who wrote the foreword. It certainly deserves much credit. Many Christians in the modern American climate are completely ignorant of their heritage. This is a fact that Ellison quickly remedies in only 90 quick pages, as he traces the historical and Biblical precedent for each of the Five Sola's. Usually these are referred to as the "Five Sola's of the Reformation", as the subtitle indicates, but Ellison himself is quick to point out that while these ideas were certainly integral to the teachings of the Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, the Reformers themselves never stood on the foundation of the "Five Sola's" explicitly. These concepts were "codified" if you will, long after these men were gone.
The Five Sola's, for brevity's sake, are Sola: Scriptura (scripture), Gratia (Grace), Fide (Faith), Christus (Christ), Deo Gloria (Glory of God).
Ellison uses this order and begins with Sola Scriptura because he claims that any established argument must begin here. However, in his last chapter on Soli Deo Gloria, he states that all of the points ultimately assume that the glory of all of our work is to go to God alone, so that point would also be foundational in developing the other four. Thus, his beginning and end show the unity of these five points and their inseparability.
His historical examination of the development of these ideas is nearly impeccable. He begins each chapter by briefly explaining the historical background (usually from the 16th Century) that led to the weight of importance that was placed on each of the Sola's. There is valuable information that I was hitherto unfamiliar with, such as his explanation of explicit and implicit faith in the Roman Catholic tradition - which was information that I believe is crucial to understanding the historical developments of the doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. It was nice to read these insights for the first time in such a brief piece; the depth of study was well-received. The historical background shifts into a discussion of the Biblical precedent, that is always so well-exposited that every Reformed pastor will feel like he has suddenly jumped into a Puritan commentary.
The one critique that I would have on Ellison's historical writing is that (as is the case with many Reformed authors), he seems to have rose-colored glasses when it comes to the Reformers themselves. For example, he makes note of the fact that John Calvin had himself interred in an unmarked grave so as to not be enshrined in the future, which is fair enough. However, he mentions the great advances that Calvin contributed to in Geneva as being done "by one man simply preaching the Bible." He even says later that Calvin and the other Reformers were not in favor of using force in matters of faith. I expect that Michael Servetus would object - that is, if he had not been burned alive in Geneva at the hands of John Calvin for being a Modalist, and the Jews might have objected to calling Martin Luther inclusive in light of his unapologetic anti-semitism. These uglier parts of history do not always need to be drudged up, but if we are going to talk about the great advances that were made, somebody in the room should mention the darker sides as well. "If we say we have no sin, we lie..."
The lines are clear.
There are two chapters in this book that truly shine. The first chapter and the fourth chapter are absolutely top-notch, and should be recommended by any Reformed pastor to any introductory-level Christian seeking to learn why we believe what we believe. In fact, I am considering using this book as a text for a discipleship training class in the future at my church. His explanation of Sola Scriptura and Solus Christus are truly that good!
However, the second chapter is markedly problematic. I believe this chapter is the one that will result in the book not receiving the accolades that it deserves. Unfortunately, it is the chapter on Sola Gratia. Ellison, likely inadvertently, has made a strawman of Pelagianism in this chapter that will be torn apart by any educated Pelagian/Arminianist. While his points may be factually correct, no Pelagian (or semi-Pelagian for that matter) would ever agree to the manner in which his points are presented. One can tell even by the source material that he cites when defining the beliefs of the other traditions that he is setting up a strawman, because the sources that he quotes in defining Pelagianism are all Reformed authors. Not only that, it is not as though Ellison was unaware that these men were writing about a perspective they did not hold, he must have known he was quoting people who did not believe the things they were describing. There is simply no way that he could possibly have not known that Michael Horton and J.I. Packer were not Pelagians! He does the same thing on several occasions with the Roman Catholic Church. In defining their beliefs, he quotes sources that are clearly not Catholic.
If a person's beliefs are truly what you say they are, and they are counter to what we know to be true, there should be no problem in finding materials in which they claim to believe those things. It is poor sportsmanship (and one would like to say poor scholarship) to allow advocates of the opposing view to define the beliefs of a group so that you can critique them. I am sure that this will end up costing Ellison and his otherwise wonderful work greatly. I would love to see this argument strengthened. To my recollection, the only time he quotes someone of a differing opinion it is in reference to Finney, whose thoughts he quickly summarizes in a way that neither Finney nor anyone holding his position would ever agree to being accurately reflective of the things he just said. Based on the other four chapters, I believe Ellison can do better on Chapter 2.
As a Baptist...
One thing that Ellison has done that has left me wanting more is he has written the book like an academic history paper - which is not lost on me. I love that style and I am so glad that someone has written a book about the Sola's that not only defines them but gives their historical and Biblical background. Yet, at times, Ellison will jump into the story and interject his own opinion, such as in chapter five when he claims that many of the Reformed churches have not gone far enough in granting total autonomy to local churches. I would love (as a Reformed Baptist) to have a book that goes farther into how the Reformed Baptists can bring ourselves into closer union with the scriptures. If Ellison ever produces a second edition of this book, I pray that he will allow us the privilege of reading more about modern advancements on some of the ideas that were produced through the Reformation. On the other hand, if the book is intended to be a historical book, we must practice our restraint and keep our thoughts out of it. What genre is this intended to be? Commentary, or history?
Comments