Posted on 07/01/2002 6:50:15 AM PDT by Revelation 911
To repeat the immortal words of Hank Kerchief, 'I could care a fig what any of you think'
This is from New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VII: Liutpra http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc07&page=279&view=thml
4. As Theologian. As a theologian, Melanchthon did not show so much creative ability as a genius for collecting and systematizing the ideas of others, especially of Luther, for the purpose of instruction. He kept to the practical, and cared little for connection of the parts, so his Loci were in the form of isolated paragraphs. The fundamental difference between Luther and Melanchthon lies not so much in the latter's ethical conception, as in his humanistic mode of thought which formed the basis of his theology and made him ready not only to acknowledge moral and religious truths outside of Christianity, but also to bring Christian truth into closer contact with them, and thus to mediate between Christian revelation and ancient philosophy.
Melanchthon's views differed from Luther's only in some modifications of ideas. Melanchthon looked upon the law as not only the correlate of the Gospel, by which its effect of salvation is prepared, but as the unchangeable order of the spiritual world which has its basis in God himself. He furthermore reduced Luther's much richer view of redemption to that of legal satisfaction. He did not draw from the vein of mysticism running through Luther's theology, but emphasized the ethical and intellectual elements.
After giving up determinism and absolute predestination and ascribing to man a certain moral freedom, he tried to ascertain the share of free will in conversion, naming three causes as concurring in the work of conversion, the Word, the Spirit, and the human will, not passive, but resisting its own weakness. Since 1548 he used the definition of freedom formulated by Erasmus, "the capability of applying oneself to grace."(emphasis mine) He was certainly right in thinking it impossible to change one's character without surrender of the will; but by correlating the divine and the human will he lost sight of the fundamental religious experience that the desire and realization of good actions is a gift of divine grace. His definition of faith lacks the mystical depth of Luther.
In dividing faith into knowledge, assent, and trust, he made the participation of the heart subsequent to that of the intellect, and so gave rise to the view of the later orthodoxy that the establishment and acceptation of pure doctrine should precede the personal.
Dec that was Luthers Foundation..so how can the author say he ONLY "modified " some ideas.
dec jean has closed you down..give it up
Hey, I wonder what it is about Calvinists that they love being wrong!
The strained relation between these two men never came from external things, such as human rank and fame, much less from other advantages, but always from matters of Church and doctrine, and chiefly from the fundamental difference of their individualities; they repelled and attracted each other "because nature had not formed out of them one man." However, it can not be denied that Luther was the more magnanimous, for however much he was at times dissatisfied with Melanchthon's actions, he never uttered a word against his private character; but Melanchthon, on the other hand, sometimes evinced a lack of confidence in Luther. In a letter to Carlowitz he complained that Luther on account of his polemical nature exercised a personally humiliating pressure upon him. Luther certainly never intended to exercise such a pressure, and if it existed at all, it was Melanchthon's own fault.But as I said before I gave up a long time on your ability to grasp simple facts. That 'modification' was rejected by the Lutherian Church at the Forumula of Concord when they rejected the 'will' as being part of the conversion process.
Moving toward Erasmus is some 'modification'
Couldnt have anything to do with a contrary heart could it?
To say that the beginning of repentance is in man, would be inverting the order; man turns to God on the ground that God first turns to man. Melanch thon later modified this view, first, by relinquishing the deterministic conception of the doctrine of pre destination (Scholia on Colossians, 1527). The special properties of the nature with which God en dowed man in distinction from the other creatures are " reason " and " choice." The natural man is capable of a " carnal and civil righteousness."And this is WesleyThe thought of God as the author of sin formerly not avoided is now repudiated. In the Commentary on Romans (Wittenberg, 1532) he teaches the universal ity of divine grace, and shuns all closer investiga tion of the mystery of divine election. Melaneh thon now regards the pity of God as the cause of election, but recognizes in non-rejection a negative cause of acceptance.
The development of his doc trine of free will and conversion gains momentum with his growing desire to understand the act of di vine grace at the same time as a psychological proc ess in the human consciousness and will, consist ently with his explanations of the mental powers presented in his commentary on the Ethics of Aris totle (1529) and in De anima (1540). Besides, there was his practical motive to make man responsible for his own salvation. With respect to the former, the will is the formal power which responds, either by willing, not willing, or neutrality, to the sub jects manifested by the intellect; it may follow the beckoning of the desires or the admonitions of the reason. The will produces nothing original, but assumes an attitude toward what approaches it.
This power was not lost through original sin. Like wise, when the grace of God contained in his Word draws nigh, and, through the hearing of it, the Holy Spirit enters man and produces the spiritual effects of repentance and faith, there yet remains to the will the alternative attitude of acceptance or re jection. In this sense Melanchthon mentions the " three concurrent causes of good actions" in re generation: " the Word, the Holy Spirit, and the will, not absolutely inert, but struggling against its own infirmity."
In this sense he lets the definition of Erasmus hold: " Free will is the power of apply ing oneself to grace." This synergism was taught in the Leipsic Interim, which affirmed among other things that God does not deal with man as with a block, but The Leipsic so regenerates him that his will coop Interim. crates. Matthias Flacius (q.v.) pro fessed to divine in those words a pa pistical meritum de congruo and a fragment of free will.
Johann Pfeffinger published Melanchthon's doctrine in two disputations: De libertate voluntatis humance (Leipsic, 1555); and De libero arbitrio (1555). The concurrent. active causes are " the Holy Spirit moving through the. Word of God, the mind in the act of thinking, and the will not resist ing, but complying whenever moved by the Holy Spirit." If the attitude of man were ut status when the Holy Spirit has kindled reason, will, and feel- ing, then there would be no inner struggle to secure faith; if man was idle or " purely passive," then the distinction between pious and impious, elect and non-elect, as well as the impartiality and justice of God, would disappear. " Therefore, there was in us -some cause why some assent and others do not assent."
5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.And this is Arminius
— Arminius — In his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. (Vol 1, p 252, italics in original)I guess we all must really be Calvinists!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.