I have yet to see you post a direct quote from Melanchthon. And, as I have stated before, the fact I have not posted any evidence should not be interpreted that I do not have any evidence.
I'm just waiting for you to prove your case! I suppose I could find a bunch of nasty things said by -some- historians about Wesley and Arminius. Would that convince you?
(Hint to ftd: I am well aware of the 'synergism' controversy. The fact is that some historians claim M. was a synergist and some historians vehimently deny this. That drives some people -namely myself- to recognize their accounts are in conflict and to look deeper -which I have-.)
"Here are some...."
"Schaff"
As I have noted before, Schaff gets the 'controversy' from the wrong place. Since he is wrong on the origination of the controversy, I don't expect that he has a proper conclusion. In fact, I know he does not.
"Henry Sheldon writes..."
Again, no quotes from Melanchthon. As I have pointed out previously, -some- historians see synergism. In my research, those who dealve deeper into Melanchthon deny this -vehimently! (hint: general 'encyclopedia' type of references are inherently incomplete. They do not go as deep as people who have made a life of studying this great Reformer!)
"And Will Durant says..."
Will Durant! Objective Historian! ( /sarcasm>) LOL!
"Now, that is three historians who state that Melanchthon went synergistic. That along with the direct quote that states he added the will, along with the Holy Spirit and the word as part of the salvation process."
In your quote, Durant never claims Melanchthon is a 'synergist' or 'synergistic'. And again, Durant (suprise suprise) doesn't get the 'controversy' from the correct work of Melanchthon either.
And, as I have stated previously, Calvinism places -great- emphasis on the responsibility of Man to accept the gospel message! I know you don't like that. I know you deny that is even possible, but, ftd, ITS WHAT WE BELIEVE. Deal with it!
When it comes down to it, Melanchthon's first comments on predestination in the 1521 'Common Places' was decidedly -non- calvinistic -no room for the freedom of the will which calvinism HAS ALWAYS PROFESSED! By Melanchthon's embracing the free-will, he moved decidedly closer to Calvin's position on predestination -especially on the responsibility of the sinner!
In fact, Calvin had disclosed in private correspondence to Melanchthon that he was convinced they could work out an agreement on predestination, "ut de gratuita piorum electione sincerior quam antehac docendi formam inter nos mutuo conveniunt" (Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia -Edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil, 1834-60, 15:488-89, dated July 17, 1545)
"Now, besides your incredulous reaction, do you have any facts that state that Melanchthon did not reject predestination as taught by Luther and Calvin?"
Yes.
"So, Calvin would accept that the will is as much part of the salvation process as the Holy Spirit and the Scripture? "
ftd, ftd, ftd! Melanchthon himself never stated the will played as big a role as the Holy Spirit and the Word! He was extremely insistent that it was by no means as big a part! Now, if you would have studied up on the issue -perhaps by reading Melanchthon himself- you would have known this!
"Calvin had God changing the will with irresistable grace, not having that the will making a decision."
Melanchthon held to nearly an identical position. Melanchthon -never- said "that the will [made] a decision"!
Now, if you want to claim a connection with the reformation via the Phillipists -those who perverted the teachings of Melanchthon- by all means do so. However, these folks were roundly condemned by their contemporary orthodox Lutheran counterparts.
But as to Melanchthon. His difference with Calvin laid not in substance but in emphasis.
Jean
Keep living in your world of delusion. I think that you must be the only I have ever met that did not see Melanchthon as a synergist.
In a new revision of his Loci which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death adn in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes, the Spirit of God, the Word of God and the will of man and states the will may accept or reject God's grace ,copulationem causarum, Verbi dei, Spriritus Sancti, et voluntatis This is the chief passage that which was afterwards assailed as synergistic (Schaff,Vol 1 Creeds of Christiandom, p.263), now what part of that passage do not understand? Do you see the will being equal with the Spirit and the word in the Salvation event?
That is a direct quote from Melanchthon's work.
But as to Melanchthon. His difference with Calvin laid not in substance but in emphasis.
Not as he stated in that 1548 edition of his Loci but what Calvinist ever cared about facts.
The entire passage in Latin is in Schaff's work, and I do not have the time to write it out.
You have given nothing back that would even remotely suggest the historians are wrong. Not one fact, just a bunch of hot air!