Posted on 07/01/2002 6:50:15 AM PDT by Revelation 911
We are not discussing Melanchthon and Calvin. We are not discussing the validity of Single Predestination. We are not discussing the rationality of certain aspects of Calvinism.
We are discussing Melanchthon’s alleged synergism and alleged abandonment of predestination.
In order to keep the discussion from getting out of hand, I will skip pass most of your comments as they really are off topic. I will, however, take the time to comment some of your points I think are relevant as well as your points which show a weakness in your thinking.
”First off, I never stated flat-out that Melancthon was legitimately a synergist.”
Well, OK. Melanchthon wasn’t a synergist. Since either you are a synergist or a monergist (either the will is required to initiate conversion or it is not), I guess that makes Melanchthon a monergist. This has been my point all along.
So, then, why are we having this discussion? It seems that nearly everything you’ve argued points towards Melanchthon giving the ‘will’ credit for making the ‘decision’ for God. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, Melanchthon ascribes a place for man’s will, sure, but he is explicit in maintaining that the will is purely passive.
“It is true that God very marvelously illumines and works in conversion, and even during the entire life of the saints, which illumination the human will only receives, and is not a co-worker, and is absolutely passive.”
[Lutheran Quarterly, XXXV (1905)]
Now, for the life of me, I can’t see how this can be anything but a predestinarian statement. How in the world can an “absolutely passive” will do anything but accept. It seems that Melanchthon leaves no room for the will being able to reject the grace of God. Yes, Melanchthon says the will can reject the ~promise~, but once the Holy Spirit begins regeneration, the will is absolutely passive and "assents".
”However, it is quite obvious that he was not a Calvinist, and he DID reserve a real place for the human will in salvation--not just a marionette with its strings pulled by God. This definitely muddies the waters on his position of monergism, because a strict monergism holds that man plays no role in his own salvation.
”First off, in this case I am not terribly concerned with labels (I usually love them, strangely enough). Whether he could more accurately be described as a monergist or a synergist, he nevertheless reserved a real place for the human will in salvation.”
”You seem to think that if Melancthon wasn't a synergist, he must've been a monergist. This is hardly the case: as you can see from the Preface to Melancthon on Christian Doctrine, he simply denies both views. Man is not a synergistic co-worker with God, nor does God force a man to accept grace (and "re-engineering" one's heart so that one accepts grace IS forcing one to accept grace, especially in light of this "re-engineering," or regeneration, being grace itself).”
***STRAW-MAN ALERT***STRAW-MAN ALERT***
***WARNING***WARNING***WARNING***
Come on, grams! Why the continued insistence on the straw man???
It is simply unacceptable for you to insist that we do not believe what we profess to believe.
Let me demonstrate something by analogy.
I assume that you believe the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. This is the belief that God is one being and at the same time three distinct persons. Now, if I were to take the tact you take with Calvinism, I would insist that you are either a polytheist or a modalist. It is impossible for a single being to be three distinct persons. Therefore, I would also insist that you do not in reality believe what you profess to believe. And, if I were like you, I would continue to argue against either your polytheism or your modalism. Nevcr mind that you explicitly deny either.
Another example. Creation out of Nothing. The orthodox position of the Christian church has been that God created all there is out of absolutely nothing at all. No pre-existing matter or energy was in exesitance –nothing! Well, if I were you, I would accuse you (again, assuming you profess Createo ex nihilo) of actually denying that doctrine –for it is irrational. It does not follow that God could make the entire universe out of absolutely no pre-existing matter or energy. Therefore, I would insist that you, in reality, actually believe that God used pre-existing matter to create the universe. I would then continue to argue against your doctrine out of Creation out of Nothing
I could use a number of orthodox Christian doctrines as examples here. The Incarnation, the Resurrection of the Body, The Virgin Birth…
So, since I can accept and wholeheartedly believe all these cherished but paradoxical orthodox Christian doctrines, as I’m assuming you as well do, why cannot I also hold to a mystery that –while God ordains all events that man is neither a robot (I explicitly deny this) or that God is necessarily the author of sin or evil (I explicitly deny this).
Grams, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Discuss what we actually profess to believe, not what it is that you insist (the straw man) we believe. And if you continue to insist that our doctrines of providence and predestination be consistently rational, then you must alter your doctrines of the Trinity, Creation out of Nothing, Incarnation, Virgin Birth…to be consistently rational as well!!!!!!!!!!
When it comes down to it, the Calvinist can wholeheartedly agree with Melanchthon when he professes:
“However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with both intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread throughout the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the race but distorted it and spiritually killed it, so also the divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were senseless blocks and stones; nor does it abolish man’s will and its properties or coerce the reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit will now begin to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from the fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin while still standing upright.”
How many times have we Calvinists here said that man is unwilling to obey or believe? (In fact, it is Melanchthon who specifically says, the natural man is unable to "assent".) How many have we Calvinists said that, once God accomplishes regeneration, we always want to believe? For you to continually insist upon the “straw man” is quite silly!
Take, for example, another look at the Heidelberg Catechism (the most cherished confession of Biblical Truth in the Continental Reformed Churches)
Q. Since, then, we are delivered from our misery by grace alone, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we yet do good works?A. Because Christ, having redeemed us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image, that with our whole life we may show ourselves thankful to God for His benefits, and that He may be praised by us; then, also that each of us may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof, and that by our godly walk our neighbors also may be won over for Christ.
[Lords Day XXXII, Q&A 86 from the Heidelberg Catechism]
Here we have the declaration that God does something and that we do something. No attempt to explain the mystery, simply acceptance of God’s initial role and our subsequent role. No marionette strings, no robots. (Note also, how Melanchthonian sounding!!)
Look also at Belgic Confession:
MAN’S SANCTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKSWe believe that this true faith, being wrought in man by hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man; for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith which is called in Scripture a faith working through love, which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word.
These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good anc acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by grace. Nevertheless they are of no account towards our justificqation, for it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.
Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?); nay, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He who worketh in us both to will and to work, for his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: When ye shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do. In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards good works, but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts.
Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus, then, we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Saviour
[Article XXIV]
A whole discription of all the things that ~we~ do! No Robots, no Marionette strings, no blocks of stone or pieces of wood.
Now, as to your suggestion that I believe that Melanchthon was a Calvinist: I have never stated that Melanchthon is, indeed, a Calvinist. I have stated that he is far closer to being a Calvinist that you might think. (It is true that the Reformed Churches were attempting to draw him into their camp –now why would they do this if he were so far removed from Calvinism as you claim? There were accusations, as well, from his contemporary fellow Lutherans claiming he was a Calvinist! Even my pastor, after reading through the Loci and some of the other books I have, made the remark that, in his opinion, Melanchthon was closer to Calvin in thought than any of the other major reformers!) And, as I have previously shown, Calvin thought their ‘misunderstanding’ of predestination would be easily resolved in a face to face meeting. Why would Calvin say this if Melanchthon explicitly denied even election to salvation???
”Quite frankly, now that you've finally laid your cards out on the table, they aren't nearly as impressive as they were back when you kept berating me and telling me to read up on Melancthon.”
Oh, goodness! You think I’ve laid out ~all~ my cards? LOL! And btw, you ~still~ don’t understand Melanchthon. And you continue to read Melanchthon and Calvin in the light of ‘predestination’ and ‘free-will’. That is doing an incredible disservice to these men. One must read Melanchthon in the light of Melanchthon and Calvin in the light of Calvin. To do this, one must understand their motivations and the reasons in which they wrote what they wrote.
As for Melanchthon, it is imperative to understand his ‘seeming’ moderation as well as his insistence on addressing predestination from the ‘believer’ side –as a comfort to the believer. You continually are attempting to interpret his ‘predestination’ statements from the ‘God side’ –the ‘how’s, ‘who’s and ‘why’s of God’s decision. Melanchthon continually tries to avoid going there (although it would be wrong to suggest that he never does –as Englelland has conclusively shown). Thus, we have your ‘interpretation’ of statements of Melanchthon such as “God draws the willing” as being akin to the Arminian belief that God ‘predestines’ those who he ‘foresaw’ would choose to believe. Melanchthon isn’t even on the same page as you here. He is presenting God’s election as a comfort to a person WHO IS ALREADY A BELIEVER and who is doubting their election and assurance of salvation. Futhermore, in conversion –the ‘will’ says Melanchthon, is absolutely passive.
“It's no more irresponsible than you trying to read your single-predestination into his writings… However, this also means that you shouldn't try to read absolute predestination into him …Again, you're reading your own single-predestinarianism into Melancthon…”
Now Grammer! Employing the ‘Tu-quoque’ variation of the ‘Ad-hominem’ logical fallacy doesn’t really help your cause. Ad Hominem: Tu quoque -trying to refute an accusation (eisegesis) by showing that the speaker is guilty of it.
To attempt to argue that you are not guilty of reading your Arminianism into Melanchthon, you attempt to show that I am reading my ‘Single Predestination’ into Melanchthon.
Now, am I guilty of eisegesis?
First of all, seeing as I never claimed that Melanchthon continued to teach ‘absolute’ predestination (remember? -I said he was a single predestinarian!), I don’t ‘read’ it into him.
Secondly, ‘my’ Single Predestination is a bit different than Melanchthon’s Single Predestination. I effectively hold to absolute predestination. Melanchthon emphatically did not. And, you have already demonstrated this with your citation of Calvin’s Institutes 3.XXI.1 (remember? I said you quoted this “a bit out of context”?).
“The only cause for rejection is our striving against God’s Word. Therewith, we should console ourselves and be content…When you hear the preaching of the Word, remember that it applies to you, and do not be puzzled over election or predestination. If you have the beginning of faith, then God will help you farther.”
[CR 22:417; CR 25:438]
Third, other’s (actual Melanchthon experts!) have already established Melanchthon’s position.
“In 1535, the locus on predestination was placed within the context of the preceptor’s (Melanchthon’s) analysis of justification through faith, and its content also focused upon the conditionless nature of God’s mercy.”
[Melanchthon’s Influence on his Students; Robert Kolb from Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) and the Commentary, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, England, 1997, p. 199]
“…These statements indicate that Melanchthon does not reject predestination in principle-even in the sense of reprobation, but admonishes practically and pastorally about it. This would mean that a responsible decision of man and a sovereign decision of God take place simultaneously in the acceptance or rejection of salvation. In this assertion of dual activity Melanchthon is speaking in a paradoxical way, as he does in the question about the relation of the acts of God and of man in the formation of faith.
Mealnchthon, therefore, stands theologically nearer to Luther than the traditional view indicates. The important theological deficiencies of the time following Melanchthon are more the responsibility of students who fragmented what he had fused.” [Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes 1555, Introduction by Hans Engelland, xli]Foruth, simply look at article XI in the Formula of Concord and you will find Melanchthon’s position on predestination -including some of the very same phrasings- is the official doctrine in the Lutheran Church.
“To be sure, there has been no public, scandalous, or widespread conflict among the theologians of the Augsburg Confession”…(guess who that would be, grams?)…“on the eternal election of the children of God”…“The eternal election of God, however, or praedestinatio (that is, God’s preordination of salvation), does not apply to the godly and the evil, but instead only to the children of God, who are chosen and predestined to eternal life, “before the foundation of the world” was laid, as Paul says”…“God’s eternal election not only foresees and foreknows the salvation of the elect but its also a cause of our salvation and whatever pertains to it, on the basis of the gracious will and good pleasure of God in Christ Jesus”…“We should not judge this matter according to our reason, nor according to the law, nor on the basis of outward appearance. Nor should we have the temerity to search the secret, hidden abyss of divined foreknowledge. Instead we are to pay attention to the revealed will of God”…“Therefore, if we want to consider our eternal election to salvation profitably, we must always firmly and rigidly insist that, like the proclamation of repentence, so the promise of the gospel is universalsis, that is, it pertains to all people”…“In the same vein, Holy Scripture also testifies that God, who has called us, is so faithful that when he has “begun a good work in us,” he will also continue it to the end and complete it, if we do not turn away from him, but “remain steadfast to the end in that which he has begun.”…“If we are content to remain with and hold to the mystery of predestination insofar as it is revealed to us in God’s Word, it is a very useful, salutary and comforting teaching”…“This doctrine also gives us wonderful comfort in crosses and trials, that in his counsel before time began God determined and decreed that he would stand by us in every trouble, grant us patience, give us comfort, create hope, and provide a way out of all things so that we may be saved”…“When something in this discussion soars too high and goes beyond these boundries, we should with Paul put our hand over our mouths, think, and say, “Who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?”…“Accordingly, the eternal election of God should be considered in Christ and not apart from or outside of Christ”…“The reason why not all who hear the Word believe it (and thus receive the greater damnation) is not that God has not allowed them to be saved. Instead, it is their own fault”…“Therefore, it is false and incorrect to teach that nbot only the mercy of God and the most holy merit of Christ but also something inus is a cause of God’s election, and for this reason God chose us for eternal life…”
[The Formula of Condord, 1577]Exactly Calvinistic? Goodness no! But I never claimed that he was a Calvinist, just that he wasn’t too far away! In fact, as I mentioned before, I asked my pastor to read from the ’55 Loci on Predstination. His first comment was regarding the observation that Melanchthon was approaching election from the aspect of a comfort to the believer. Upon finishing the reading of that locus, he remarked, “He’s right on!” And this from a ~very~ Calvinistic Dutch Reformed Minister!
It’s pretty cut and dry, Grams.
You need more? OK…
Referring to the 1535 Loci, Luther admonished his students:”I am fully aware that Melancthon never addresses the conditional-vs.-absolute predestination question directly, at least in the Loci.”
Read Philip’s Loci next to the Bible. In this very wonderful book the pure theology is taught in a quiet and orderly way. Augustine, Bernard, Bonaventura, Lyra, Gabriel Biel, Staupitz, have much that is good; but Master Philip can exlplain the Scriptures and present their meaning in brief compass
[Cf. Faulkner, op. cit., pp. 184 ff. Matthesius, Twelfth Sermon.]”In 1578 the theologians of the churches of Pomerania would not accept the Bergic book in which Flacian charges against Melanchthon were embodied. Some of the Pomeranian preachers had been students of Melanchthon and Luther and had heard discussions of free-will. They issued a statement, to counteract Flacius’ charges against Melanchthon:
”The opinion of the cooperation of man’s free will in spiritual things by its own natural powers never heard of or saw a trace during the lifetime of Luther. On the contrary, we heard and were taught, and by God’s grace have taught others, that in conversion to God man’s free will by its own powers can do and does nothing, and can contribute nothing of itself or by itself to conversion. But also that in conversion to God man is not absolutely like a block of stone. But when through the instrumentality of the Word of God he is moved and drawn by the Holy Spirit, he then, as a rational being, has a movement in himself. By carnal wickedness he can do nothing by his natural powers, he can by using the Will submit to God and his Word, and can become obedient to the same, though there is still much weakness in the flesh.
[Richard, Luth. Quarterly, XXXVII (1907)]
Actually, he did in the 1521 Loci: “Thus the Loci of 1521 teaches that the human will is unfree in both external and internal affections. Melanchthon is careful to make clear that he views deterministic predestination from the infralapsarian standpoint.”
[The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, Introduction by Charles Leander Hill (translator), p60, Meador Publishing Co., Boston, 1944]“…--he quite blatantly says to Calvin that he can't accept a secret decree of election and reprobation,…”
Yes, he quite blatantly says as Manschreck states, “…there is no secret will in God damning some ~AND~ saving others.” Oh…you for got the ‘and’????? Again, you’re reading your Arminianism into Melanchthon. Quite clearly, Melanchthon rejects what he sees as Calvin’s ‘Double’ decree. This in no way necessitates that Melanchthon denies a ‘Single’ decree!
“As for Clyde Manshreck stating that Melancthon specifically denied any "synergism," I am not sure to what you refer. Perhaps this remark: 'In 1558 he declared that "Stoic necessity is a downright lie and a reproach to God," that "in external morality the will is not forced to commit adultery, theft, etc.," and that man is not a synergistic co-worker with God in conversion, nor does God force a man to accept grace. The contrary would be "against God's word, injurious to all discipline, and blasphemous against God"'?”
No, I refer to Melanchthon’s actual words, “It is true that God very marvelously illuminates and works in conversion, and even during the entire life of the saints, which illumination the human will only receives, and is not a co-worker, and is absolutely passive” [Melanchthon in 1558 as recorded in Lutheran Quarterly, XXXV (1905)]
”If so, the only thing this proves was that Melancthon was walking a tight-rope between the twin chasms of synergism and monergism: man is not a synergistic co-worker with God in conversion (which obviously means only "regeneration," here, rather than what you stated before about the process of the Christian walk), neither does God force a man to accept grace. Sounds to me more like he's trying to avoid either camp, more than anything else.”
Funny, there you go with the straw man, again. The highlighted part is actually specifically what we Calvinists profess to believe? I guess in your thinking -and assuming we have the right to believe what we say we believe!- Melanchthon is ~real~ close to Calvin! Some ‘Tightrope’! Thank you!
”And that is rather fitting, really, because Melancthon's whole life was characterized by a spirit of reconciliation, and of moderation.”
I see you ~still~ don’t understand Melanchthon. And in doing so, you vastly underestimate him!:
”Luther regarded him as the greatest theologian that ever lived and declared that the Loci deserved to stand next to the Bible. Yet, his name was in his own day, and still is, beclouded by suspicion. His gentleness was mistaken for weakness, his learnedness was regarded as questionable rationalism, his refusal to accept Luther without discrimination was painted as rebellion, his struggles to unify Christendom were labled propapalism, and his recognition of the worth of Geneva’s great leader was slurred as crypto-Calvinism.
[Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Leonard Manschreck, Abingdon Press, New York, 1957, p. 14]”No, neither is the case. I neither think that if Melancthon wasn't a Calvinist that he was a synergist, nor think that you think that if Melancthon wasn't a Calvinist that he was a synergist. I am simply arguing that Melancthon was not an absolute predestinarian (whether single or double doesn't matter--they mean the same thing)… Actually, attempting to read the thing without any bias, you might (and I did) explain this as Melancthon denying a belief in Unconditional Election/Absolute Predestination (it doesn't matter whether single- or double-predestination--they are too close to really be different views). As for your admission that Melancthon was adamant about not getting into the "whys" and "whos" of predestination, I stated from the very beginning that I thought Melancthon was the originator of the modern notion among some Lutherans (Bonhoeffer, for one) that election is a mystery, not to be pried into. It took you this long to finally slip up and agree with me! I'm impressed... This really doesn't help your case that Melancthon was an absolute "single" predestinarian (as if there's such a thing).”
There is a reason for the distinction and it is real! Not only that, but you fail to understand official Lutheran Doctrine regarding ‘predestination’ –also ‘Single Predestination’, but –as I’ve previously noted- a bit different than my position.
R.C. Sproul defines three different types of Single/Double Predestination:
Two types of Double Predestination and one type of Single Predestination.
Double Predestination:
1) Positive-Positive –this doctrine states that God both positively decrees salvation and positively decrees reprobation.2) Positive-Negative –this doctrine states that God positively decrees only salvation and passively decrees reprobation. (This is my professed view –while I was taught this as ‘Single Predestination’, I have no problem with the different label). Sproul defines this view as the ‘Classical Reformed’ view.
”Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God’s positive and negative decrees. God positively decrees the election of some, and he negatively decrees the reprobation of others. The difference between positive and negative does not refer to the outcome (though the outcome indeed is either positive or negative), but to the manner by which God brings his decrees to pass in history.
The positive side refers to God’s active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God’s working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them.
Calvin comments on this: “Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those who He blessed with the free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; while others, continuing of their own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.(John Calvin, A treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Henry Cole, in Calvin’s Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950, p. 31)
For Calvin and other Reformers God passes over the reprobate, leaving them to their own devices. He does not coerce them to sin or create fresh evil in their hearts. He leaves them to themselves, to their own choices and desires, and they always choose to reject the gospel.”
[Grace Unkown, R.C. Sproul, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1997, p. 158]Single Predestination –God only positively decrees salvation to some. The condemnation of the others comes from absolutely no decree of God –passive or active. It comes from the working of sin in their own and the ultimate rejection of the gospel in their own hearts. This, Sproul identifies as the official Lutheran position.
Sproul notes that single predestination is a completely illogical position. Calvin also points this same problem out in Institutes 3.XXI.1 (Calvin was specifically addressing Melanchthon’s position which is why you quoted this citation out of context!). Even so, you will not see me decrying that Lutheran’s don’t actually believe this –as you continue to do to the Calvinists with your insistence on the ‘straw-man’. This is what they believe. Now, I don’t think it’s very biblical, but the logic doesn’t necessarily have a whole lot to do with its incorrectness!
” Wow, that's some non sequiter you have there. Because Melancthon was talking about eternal predestination and reprobation with a view to "comfort the believer," as you put it, it is irresponsible to suggest that Melancthon viewed salvation on anything in man? So, despite the fact that you readily admit that it is talking about something else, this is supposed to make it irresponsible to suggest that Melancthon viewed salvation on anything in man? Again, it doesn't follow.”
My point, grams, was that it was irresponsible for YOU to insinuate that Melanchthon’s specific declarations such as ‘God draws those who are willing’ are ‘Arminianesque’. As for a ‘non sequiter’ on my part? Sorry, but I was not declaring a specific position one way or the other in that statement. I was simply noting your eisegesis. But you are correct! It does not follow!
”FTD had an interesting quotation in his most recent post: "Therefore we should not accuse Paul of these Stoic disputations which mililate against faith and prayer. For how can Saul believe or pray if he doubts that the promise applies to him or, if he receives these tablets of the fates-it has already been decreed that you have been rejected, that you are not written in the number of the elect, and so forth? In the face of these imaginings we must learn the will of God....In addition we must cling to this comfort regarding the effect of election: God wills that the entire human race not perish, and He always calls through mercy for the sake of His Son. He draws and gathers the church and receives those who assent." First off, this utterly destroys your contention that Melancthon didn't believe that the intended scope of redemption was "the entire human race," and it also shows that Melancthon specifically refers to "those who assent" as the ones drawn and received.”
As I fully agree with Melanchthon (and understand what he’s trying to say) it doesn’t ‘utterly destroy’ anything –except, perhaps, the ‘straw man’ you’ve constructed. I, too, believe that the intended ‘scope’ of redemption was “the entire human race” (there is no other way of salvation but to believe on Him! –but I’ve told you this before!) “He draws and gathers the church and receives those who assent.” AND “God draws man. However, God draws those who are willing ~NOT~ those who resist!” (Interpret Melanchthon in the light of Melancthon –not in isolated quotes in light of your Arminianism!)
”Actually, all he says is that God only draws the willing. Melancthon never addresses exactly how many are "willing."”
Actually, NO! Melanchthon specifically says “God draws those who are willing ~NOT~ those who resist." The specific number is irrelevant!
”And if you knew "high" Arminianism, you'd know that we don't think that Prevenient Grace is a universal constant for all men at all times. It is simply the grace that prepares our hearts to "hear and learn the gospel," and makes us willing enough to be drawn in to the Kingdom.”
I’m assuming, though, that ~all~ Arminianism applies ‘Prevenient Grace’ to both the willing and unwilling regardless of whether or not it is a ‘universal constant’. Melanchthon specifically says, “God draws those who are willing ~NOT~ those who resist.” And again, you are attempting to read your Arminianism into Melanchthon –remember? He’s addressing people who are already believers here! Thus your most recent attempt to justify Melanchthon’s statements to ‘High Arminianism’ falls flat on its face!
”Very relevant, considering we are discussing Melancthon's position in relation to Luther's and Calvin's on free agency…”
As I stated before, NO, we are not discussing ‘Melanchthon’s position in relation to Luther’s and Calvin’s on free agency…”. We are discussing Melanchthon’s alleged synergism and alleged abandonment of predestination. But, since your so interested in my statement that Melanchthon and Calvin ~were~ fairly close in thinking –and since I’m assuming you’ll summarily dismiss my pastor’s personal view that Melanchthon was closer to Calvin than any of the other Major Reformers, I’ll let you mull this over:
Remember my statement regarding the Heidelberg Catechism? To refresh your memory, the Heidelberg Catechism is the most cherished confession of Biblical Truth of the Continental Reformed Chuches. (Although we European Reformed don’t ‘officially’ subscribe to the W.C., we ~do~ think it’s pretty cool –just not ~as~ cool as the H.C.!) It was declared at the Synod of Dordt in 1618-19 that the minister shall preach from the Heidelberg Catechism once every Sunday. This would ensure the minister stay true to the reformed doctrines and it would ensure that the people in the pew would get a well rounded teaching of ~all~ theology. The point being, that the Heidelberg Catechism is the most important confession in the continental Reformed Churches.
I also previously noted that twenty-eight year old Zacharius Ursinus (professor of theology at the Heidelberg University) along with twenty-six year old Caspar Olivianus (Elector Frederick III’s court preacher) were the author’s of the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. It is widely regarded that ~most~ of the Catechism was written by Ursinus. Why is this important? Ursinus was Melanchthon’s good friend and personal protégé!
What do church history experts say about the Heidelberg Catechism???
Derek Visser in a biography on Ursinus states “much of the Heidelberg Catechism can be found in the writings of Melanchthon.” (Zacharias Ursinus: The Reluctant Reformer –His Life and Times, New York: United Chruch, 1983, p. 142)
Bard Thompson sees the theology of both Melanchthon and Calvin synthesized in the Heidelberg Catechism. (Reformed Liturgies: An Historical and Doctrinal Interpretation of the Palatinate Liturgy of 1563, Mercersburg Provisional Liturgy of 1858, Evangelical and Reformed Order of 1944, and Their Sources, B.D. Thesis, Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1949, p. 1, n.2; 6, n. 27; 7-8)
Heinrich Heppe insisted the Heidelberg Catechism was thoroughly Melanchthonian and simply a later restatement of Melanchthon’s own 1558 Frankfurt Recess. (Heinrich Heppe: A Melanchthonian Liberal in the Nineteenth-Century German Reformed Church; Church History 51, December 1982, p 430)
Maurits Gooszen claimed the three-fold division of the Heidelberg Catechism (Misery, Deliverance, and Gratitude) originates with Melanchthon. (De Heidelbergshe Catechismus: Textus Receptus met Toelichtende Teksten, Leiden: Brill, 1890, p. 97)
E. F. Karl Muller notes the central theme of comfort (see H.C. Q&A 1) comes straight from Melanchthon. (Die Bekenntnisschriften der reformierten Kirche, Leipzig, Deichert, 1903, p. LII)
Willhelm Neuser states that the references in the H.C. to knowing Christ and his benefits as well as the H. C.’s declaration of faith comes from Melanchthon. (”Die Vater des Heidelberger Katechismus”, Theologische Zeitschrift 35, no. 3 (1979), p. 182-84)
Even the H.C.’s statements regarding ‘conversion’, the interpretation of the Fifth Commandment, the wording of H.C. Q&A all come from Melanchthon. (Lang, Heidelberger Katechismus, CI)
Johannes H. A. Ebrard notes that the scarcity of references to predestination in the H.D. also comes from Melanchthon. (Das Dogma von heiligen Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, 2 vols., Frankfurt, Zimmer, 1846, 2:603-4)
Philip Schaff notes the similarity of the doctrine of the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Lord’s Supper in thoroughly Melanchthonian (History of the Christian Church, 7:669) and conludes: “The result was that the Elector deposed the leaders of both parties, Heshusius and Klebitz, called distinguished foreign divines to the University, and entrusted Zacharias Ursinus (a pupil of Melanchthon) and Caspar Olevianus (a pupil of Calvin) with the task of composing the Heidelberg or Palatinate Catechism, which was published Jan. 19, 1563. It became the principal symbolical book of the German and Dutch branches of the Reformed Church. It gives clear and strong expression to the Calvinistic-Melanchthonian theory of the spiritual real presence, and teaches the doctrine of election, but without a word on reprobation and preterition. In both respects it is the best expression of the genius and final doctrinal position of Melanchthon, who was himself a native of the Palatinate.” (Ibid.,VIII.XV.133)
John W. Nevin states, “The Catechism is no cold workmanship merely of the rationalization intellect. It is full of feeling and faith. The joyousness of a fresh, simple, childlike trust, appears beautifully and touchingly interwoven with all its divinity. A rich vein of mysticism runs every where through its doctrinal statements. A strain of heavenly music seems to flow around us at all times, while we listen to its voice. It is moderate, gentle, soft, in one word, Melanchthonian, in its whole cadence; the fit echo and image thus, we may fairly suppose, of the quiet, though profoundly earnest soul of Ursinus himself.” (The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, introduction by John W. Nevin, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954, p. xvi)
In otherwords, yes, Melanchthon and Calvin were much closer in thought and in doctrine than you think!
Jean
”Thus, you could have two 1555 versions out but one representing the first Latin edition and another representing the last”
”Haven't you ever heard of a 1st edition being translated after another edition has come out? “
”In other words the German 1555 edition had been translated from the first Latin edition(class 1) of 1521 not the last one of 1543 (Latin)(class 3) “
Sigggghhhh! It might help if you understood that ‘classes’ are different than ‘editions’! The ‘classes’ are classifications of the evolution of thought in Melanchthon. In each ‘class’ there are various editions. Each successive edition is an updated, edited and amended representation of Melanchthon’s thought.
(I’m trying to be nice)
Yes, there are three ‘classes’ or ‘eras’ of the Loci:
”The Loci was printed and reprinted. Strobel traced the history of the numerous Latin editions and German parallels through three basic periods: 1521-25, 1525-1535, and 1535 on. The first German translation appeared in 1522, almost certainly done by Spalatin. In the second period Justus Jonas was the chief German translator; in the third, Melanchthon himself. The second period was characterized by much editing and amending; and the third period, especially about 1540, was characterized by numerous changes and additions” [Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Leonard Manschreck, Abingdon Press, New York, 1958, p. 89]
”The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon has passed through a very interesting development. It is necessary to follow minutely this development in order to have proper understanding of the nature and genius of the Loci of 1521.
Since the time of George Theodore Strobel, the historical development of the Loci has been distributed over seven periods. They are as follows:
Period I, The first adumbration of the Loci not published by the author himself.
Period II, The editionS of the years 1521-1528 which embraces the first redaction edited by Melanchthon himself.
Period III, The editionS of the so-called second age of the Loci, embracing the years 1535-1541.
Period IV, The editionS of the ”third age” of the Loci, embracing the years 1542-1559.
Period V, The German translations of the Loci.
Period VI, The several other translations of it.
Period VII, Embracing the books pertaining to his work.”
[The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon (1521), translated by Charles Leander Hill, Meador, Boston, 1944, p. 50 –introduction by CLH.]
There you go, ftd, (aside from the discrepancy in the dates of these ‘periods’) the 3 ‘periods’ of the Loci contain numerous editions. This is why the 1555 Loci is the edition edited and amended by Melanchthon in 1555. If this were merely a German Translation of the 1521 Loci, it would still be called the 1521 Loci, but be in German and I couldn’t read it. If it was the English translation of the German Tranlsation of 1555 (as you contend), it would ~still~ be called the 1521 Loci English translation. According to your logic, the 1521 Loci English translation I have should be called the 1944 Loci, and the 1555 Loci English Translation I have should be called the 1965 Loci. The assignment of the year 1555 with the Loci doesn’t mean the year it was translated, it means that the Loci was edited and amended by Melanchthon in the year 1555, thus, it supercedes the 1543 Loci in your possession as well as the 1521 Loci in my possession. Also, if it were the English translation of the German Translation of the 1521 Loci which you contend, it would be nearly identical to the straight 1521 Loci English translation by Charles Leander Hill in my possession. It is not. It is the 1555 Loci! I don’t know how else to explain this to you!?!
Now, if we really wanted to look at the ‘final’ say, we would all go out and buy the 1559 Loci, which is the ~last~ edition he amended and edited. However, since this edition has yet to be translated into English, I’m not able to read it –nor do I have any interest in doing so.
”Moreover, according to the translator of the Loci he states”
”The first edition of 1521-22 has been translated twice, once in 1944 and again in 1969. The second edition has never been translated. In 1965 Clyde Manschrech put into English The German 1555 edition of Melanchton's Loci Communes which is quite different from the third and last Latin edition which was published in 1543 and republished almost up to his death in 1560. A cursory examination of the table of contents of the three English translations will show that are quite different. both in the titles of the loci and in their content, as well as length.(p7-8)”
”Note that the translator is dealing with 'classes' and not just 'editions' the last class (3) was published up until Melanchthon's death yet is different from the German edition (Class 1)”
Siggghhh! (quite literally, I might add). You need to re-read this, ftd.
He calls the 1543 Loci you have the last ~LATIN~ edition. He even notes that the 1555 German edition (which wouldn’t have been written in Latin since the 1543 was the ~last~ latin edition, now, wasn’t it?) is “quite different” than your 1543 edition. (note to ftd: he doesn’t call the 1543 edition the ‘last class’. he says merely that it is the last ~latin~ edition.)
Goodness, he even says, “A cursory examination of the table of contents of the three English translations (1521, 1543, 1555) will show that are (sic) quite different. both (sic) in the titles of the loci and in their content, as well as length.”
I’m really trying to be nice. This shouldn't be that difficult, ftd!
”So, just because it is a 1555 edition it doesn't mean it represents the 'older' Melanchthon, it would seem to be part of that first class of Loci put out. The laugh is one you! “
ooookaaaaay! What ever you say, ftd! LOL!
”Yet, both Calvin and Luther held salvation to be a process also!”
”Both John Calvin and Luther envisaged the whole Christian life as a life of conversion (Ibid,p.117)”
”Thus, there goes that defense.”
Hmmmmm, since I already stated this……
”In a recent work, Timothy Wengert writes, “
”The movement discernible inthe 1532 commentary becomes more obvious when the 1534 Scholia is compared to its predecessor from 1528. In comments on Col.1:15 and the free will Melanchthon had changed only one section. Where in both 1527 and 1528 he had written 'Tuus with clear statments it is taught that the human will does not have freedom such that it can effect Christian or spiritual righteousness, he now stated, 'such that it can effect a spiritual movement without the aid of the Holy Spirit'(Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness, Philip Melanchtons Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterman, by Timothy J. Wengert, 142)”
TUT! TUT! TUT!, ftd!
FOR SHAME! FOR SHAME!
It seems I caught you lying again! Quoting without CONTEXT!
Wengert CONTINUES(!!!):
”…Here one must be careful not to read too much into these changes(!!!). Because he refused to indulge in what he considered speculation, Melanchthon’s comments about not repudiating the Word did not for him simply connote a kind of synergism(!!!!). Instead, he seemed finally to have found a place in his theology for a paradox (simul): not in the tension between iustus and peccator, as with Luther, but in the simultaneous nonrejection of human minds and the work of the Holy Spirit, who moved the hearts of true hearers of the Word and helped them effect true virtues. Thus the paradox appeared within the life of the justified, not between righteousness and sin.”
[Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness, Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam, Timothy J. Wengert, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1998, p. 142]You aughtta be ashamed of yourself! (But I suspect your pride is too great for any shame!)
”Finally, you were talking about 'single predestination' well many Calvinist do not even buy that nonsense!…”
I’m in good company! Although he does use the identifier “Double Predestination” with my stated view (as I told Grams, that doesn’t bother me in the least), R.C. Sproul calls it the ‘Classical Reformed Position”:
”Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God’s positive and negative decrees. God positively decrees the election of some, and he negatively decrees the reprobation of others. The difference between positive and negative does not refer to the outcome (though the outcome indeed is either positive or negative), but to the manner by which God brings his decrees to pass in history.
The positive side refers to God’s active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God’s working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them.
Calvin comments on this: “Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those who He blessed with the free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; while others, continuing of their own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.(John Calvin, A treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Henry Cole, in Calvin’s Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950, p. 31)
For Calvin and other Reformers God passes over the reprobate, leaving them to their own devices. He does not coerce them to sin or create fresh evil in their hearts. He leaves them to themselves, to their own choices and desires, and they always choose to reject the gospel.”
[Grace Unkown, R.C. Sproul, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1997, p. 158]Jean
That is correct, and within each class you will have many revisions and reprints. Thus, as the translator noted that there was a Latin edition and a German edition, both differing and both were being printed at the same time (1550's)
Yes, there are three ‘classes’ or ‘eras’ of the Loci: ”The Loci was printed and reprinted. Strobel traced the history of the numerous Latin editions and German parallels through three basic periods: 1521-25, 1525-1535, and 1535 on. The first German translation appeared in 1522, almost certainly done by Spalatin. In the second period Justus Jonas was the chief German translator; in the third, Melanchthon himself. The second period was characterized by much editing and amending; and the third period, especially about 1540, was characterized by numerous changes and additions” [Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Leonard Manschreck, Abingdon Press, New York, 1958, p. 89]
OK
”The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon has passed through a very interesting development. It is necessary to follow minutely this development in order to have proper understanding of the nature and genius of the Loci of 1521. Since the time of George Theodore Strobel, the historical development of the Loci has been distributed over seven periods. They are as follows: Period I, The first adumbration of the Loci not published by the author himself. Period II, The editionS of the years 1521-1528 which embraces the first redaction edited by Melanchthon himself. Period III, The editionS of the so-called second age of the Loci, embracing the years 1535-1541. Period IV, The editionS of the ”third age” of the Loci, embracing the years 1542-1559. Period V, The German translations of the Loci. Period VI, The several other translations of it. Period VII, Embracing the books pertaining to his work.” [The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon (1521), translated by Charles Leander Hill, Meador, Boston, 1944, p. 50 –introduction by CLH.] There you go, ftd, (aside from the discrepancy in the dates of these ‘periods’) the 3 ‘periods’ of the Loci contain numerous editions. This is why the 1555 Loci is the edition edited and amended by Melanchthon in 1555. If this were merely a German Translation of the 1521 Loci, it would still be called the 1521 Loci, but be in German and I couldn’t read it.
No, because edition had been translated twice also into English.
If it was the English translation of the German Tranlsation of 1555 (as you contend), it would ~still~ be called the 1521 Loci English translation. According to your logic, the 1521 Loci English translation I have should be called the 1944 Loci, and the 1555 Loci English Translation I have should be called the 1965 Loci.
OK, I will grant the Loci will follow their 'dates', but you note above that the German translations have there own catagory.
Thus, the problem is how does the Latin(1543) differ from the German editon of 1555!
The assignment of the year 1555 with the Loci doesn’t mean the year it was translated, it means that the Loci was edited and amended by Melanchthon in the year 1555, thus, it supercedes the 1543 Loci in your possession as well as the 1521 Loci in my possession.
Yet, in German, for a German audience it might read very differently (given Melanchthon's desire not to go against Luther)
Also, if it were the English translation of the German Translation of the 1521 Loci which you contend, it would be nearly identical to the straight 1521 Loci English translation by Charles Leander Hill in my possession. It is not. It is the 1555 Loci! I don’t know how else to explain this to you!?!
I did not say that you had the 1521 edition but that it could have fallen into that 'first class' or second class which contained a number of revisions. However, it would seem that the 1543(Latin) and 1555 (German) fall into that same 'third class' in which the major 'editions' were made.
Now, if we really wanted to look at the ‘final’ say, we would all go out and buy the 1559 Loci, which is the ~last~ edition he amended and edited. However, since this edition has yet to be translated into English, I’m not able to read it –nor do I have any interest in doing so.
What! One can never get to much Melanchton!
”Moreover, according to the translator of the Loci he states” ”The first edition of 1521-22 has been translated twice, once in 1944 and again in 1969. The second edition has never been translated. In 1965 Clyde Manschrech put into English The German 1555 edition of Melanchton's Loci Communes which is quite different from the third and last Latin edition which was published in 1543 and republished almost up to his death in 1560. A cursory examination of the table of contents of the three English translations will show that are quite different. both in the titles of the loci and in their content, as well as length.(p7-8)” ”Note that the translator is dealing with 'classes' and not just 'editions' the last class (3) was published up until Melanchthon's death yet is different from the German edition (Class 1)” Siggghhh! (quite literally, I might add). You need to re-read this, ftd. He calls the 1543 Loci you have the last ~LATIN~ edition. He even notes that the 1555 German edition (which wouldn’t have been written in Latin since the 1543 was the ~last~ latin edition, now, wasn’t it?) is “quite different” than your 1543 edition. (note to ftd: he doesn’t call the 1543 edition the ‘last class’. he says merely that it is the last ~latin~ edition.)
Yes,but he states that it (the Latin editon) was 'republished almost up to Melanchthon's death in 1560'.
Thus, you had 'different' Loci in publication at the same time, a German version of 1555 and a Latin one of 1543. They are both different yet are being published at the same time, the question is how does the Latin differ from the German?
Thus, counting the German edition, there are really four quite different versions of the Loci
Goodness, he even says, “A cursory examination of the table of contents of the three English translations (1521, 1543, 1555) will show that are (sic) quite different. both (sic) in the titles of the loci and in their content, as well as length.” I’m really trying to be nice. This shouldn't be that difficult, ftd!
No, it is quite simple, we are dealing with two different Loci one Latin, one German, both in the same 'class'(3),(but differing), both being published at the same time, the 'Latin' being republished while the German was being put out!
Quite simple actually!
”Yet, both Calvin and Luther held salvation to be a process also!” ”Both John Calvin and Luther envisaged the whole Christian life as a life of conversion (Ibid,p.117)” ”Thus, there goes that defense.” Hmmmmm, since I already stated this……
No, you stated that since Melanchton held salvation to be a process and he was only discussing the Christian walk.
Yet, if Luther and Calvin held to the same view, (salvation as a process) Melanchthon's view of the will runs strongly against their's in the same salvation context.
”In a recent work, Timothy Wengert writes, “ ”The movement discernible inthe 1532 commentary becomes more obvious when the 1534 Scholia is compared to its predecessor from 1528. In comments on Col.1:15 and the free will Melanchthon had changed only one section. Where in both 1527 and 1528 he had written 'Tuus with clear statments it is taught that the human will does not have freedom such that it can effect Christian or spiritual righteousness, he now stated, 'such that it can effect a spiritual movement without the aid of the Holy Spirit'(Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness, Philip Melanchtons Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterman, by Timothy J. Wengert, 142)” TUT! TUT! TUT!, ftd! It seems I caught you lying again! Quoting without CONTEXT! Wengert CONTINUES(!!!): ”…Here one must be careful not to read too much into these changes(!!!). Because he refused to indulge in what he considered speculation, Melanchthon’s comments about not repudiating the Word did not for him simply connote a kind of synergism(!!!!).
Now, now, that is the author's interpetation of the statement. Quite the contrary, when someone says that man's will can move toward God without the Holy Spirit that is synergism.
Instead, he seemed finally to have found a place in his theology for a paradox (simul): not in the tension between iustus and peccator, as with Luther, but in the simultaneous nonrejection of human minds and the work of the Holy Spirit, who moved the hearts of true hearers of the Word and helped them effect true virtues. Thus the paradox appeared within the life of the justified, not between righteousness and sin.” [Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness, Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam, Timothy J. Wengert, Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 1998, p. 142]
Now,once again the shame is on you.
What you quoted was the authors opinion,which is irrevelant to what Melanchthon actually said! That statement that one could move toward God without God's help is as synergistic as you get. The authors 'opinions' are not part of the 'context'!But it would figure that you would not understand context since you never use it!
Moreover, I note that you did not deal with the article from the Concise Evangelical Theological Dictionary which makes Malanchton the poster boy for synergism!
”Finally, you were talking about 'single predestination' well many Calvinist do not even buy that nonsense!…” I’m in good company! Although he does use the identifier “Double Predestination” with my stated view (as I told Grams, that doesn’t bother me in the least), R.C. Sproul calls it the ‘Classical Reformed Position”: ”Though Calvinism certainly holds to a kind of double predestination, it does not embrace equal ultimacy. The Reformed view makes a crucial distinction between God’s positive and negative decrees. God positively decrees the election of some, and he negatively decrees the reprobation of others. The difference between positive and negative does not refer to the outcome (though the outcome indeed is either positive or negative), but to the manner by which God brings his decrees to pass in history.
Well, that is exactly right, it doesn't effect the outcome which is the essential issue, but only a psudo-covering to try to hide the blasphemy that God is sending (allowing) those to go to hell when He could save them (but He did save you, how nice!)
The positive side refers to God’s active intervention in the lives of the elect to work faith in their hearts. The negative refers, not to God’s working unbelief in the hearts of the reprobate, but simply to his passing them by and withholding his regenerating grace from them. Calvin comments on this: “Now, if we are not really ashamed of the Gospel, we must of necessity acknowledge what is therein openly declared: that God by His eternal goodwill (for which there was no other cause than His own purpose), appointed those whom He pleased unto salvation, rejecting all the rest; and that those who He blessed with the free adoption to be His sons He illumines by His Holy Spirit, that they may receive the life which is offered to them in Christ; while others, continuing of their own will in unbelief, are left destitute of the light of faith, in total darkness.(John Calvin, A treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Henry Cole, in Calvin’s Calvinism, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950, p. 31) For Calvin and other Reformers God passes over the reprobate, leaving them to their own devices. He does not coerce them to sin or create fresh evil in their hearts. He leaves them to themselves, to their own choices and desires, and they always choose to reject the gospel.” [Grace Unkown, R.C. Sproul, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1997, p. 158]
Oh,no Calvin did not accept the idea that one was 'passed over'
The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man would though pious ventures simply to deny, Although it is now sufficently plain that God by his secret counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others (Calvin, Institutes, Bk3,#5,7)You cannot have unconditional election without reprobation.
Single predestination is just a 'cowardly' Calvinism.
This is from the works of Arminius,
For my part when I reflect on the disputes which have produced such a lamentable division in Holland, I can hardly comprhend how men of genius could persuade themselves, that the dogmas of St. Augustine on Predestination and Grace are essential to the Reformation of Christianity; For there were many holy men, in the purest ages of the Church,who thought directly the reverse of the Father.
Cannot we renounce the monstrous and ridiculous doctrine of Purgatory, the Indulgances, the false Traditions of the Church of Rome, and the Tyranny of the Pope, without believing in Absolute Predestination, and Irresistable Grace?
What was thought of the hypothesis of the Bishop of Hippo, by all those respectable individuals who, struck with the absurdity and falsehood of the doctrines I have just enumerated, embraced the Reformation of the last century?
Did they give themselves the trouble of examining whether it was true or false? Those difficult and abstract questions occupied the sole attention of the divines, who took it into their heads to form a completed system of Divinity; and among them who chose that employment, there were many who have more carefully examined the Holy Scripture, and Ecclesiastical Antiquity,preferred the moderate sentiments of the Greek Fathers.
Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise. Could he conscientiously have acted thus, if he had been persuaded that the sentiments of Melanchthon sapped the foundations of the Reformation?
Many eminent Reformed Divines have openly maintained, that the doctrines of Universal Grace, of the Power to resist its operation and of Conditional Predestination, are in the number of those Articles which every one may believe without renouncing the principles of Religion.
Some learned Hollanders had boldy defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a Professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him.
Their writings are still extent; although it is true, that certain ministers who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into dispute; But the States of Holland uniformly checked this impetous zeal.
The Professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melanchthon; and when Arminius was called to that University, his opinions were generally known; For he had declared them in the Church of Amsterdam, from which he had received very honourable testimonals.
Gomarius, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging, immediately that the difference between the sentiments which existed between them, did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation.
True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new collegue, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox.
(Le Vassor's History of the Reign of Louis XIII, cited in the Works of Arminius,(3Vol) Testimonies,p.liv
Let us sum up what each has laid out. I gave you a number of major historians (including Calvinists), about 8-10 I believe.
You gave me a single secondary source, a biography. There were also some quotes from other sources.
I have quotes from Melanchthon himself, in which he stated that the 'will could move toward God without the Holy Spirit', that the will is involved
Therefore He expressly offers His universal (promise) and the same statement is made in both chapters(Rom.9:33,10:11)' Everyone who believes in the Son shall not be confounded; Thus He wills that with His mercy there is also a concurrent taking hold of it by our acceptance of the promise.... In addition, we must cling to this comfort regarding the effect of election; God wills that the entire human race not perish, and He always calls through mercy for the sake of His Son. He draws and gathers the church and receives those who assent (Loci, p.175)
How much this sounds like Wesley,
I must, however, confess, that he does not, as some real Protestants, continually harp upon the words FREE grace, and FREE will; but he gives reasons of considerable weight for this. (1.) Christ and his apostles never did so. (2.) He knows the word grace necessarily implies the freeness of a favor; and the word will, the freedom of our choice: and he has too much sense to delight in perpetual tautology. (3.) He finds, by blessed experience, that when the will is touched by Divine grace, and yields to the touch, it is as free to good, as it was before to evil. He dares not, therefore, make the maintaining free will, any more than free breath, the criterion of an unconverted man. On the contrary, he believes none are converted but those who have a free will to follow Jesus; and, far from being ashamed to be called a "free-willer," he affirms it as essential to all men to be "free-willing creatures," as to be "rational animals;" and he supposes he can as soon find a diamond or a flint without gravity, as a good or bad man without free will.Yet, according to you, Melanchthon is really a 'moderate' Calvinist, well in that case so were Arminius and Wesley!
The 'Grammarian' noted that all you have provided is a lot of rhetoric and assertions.
Melanchthon states For how can Saul believe or pray if he doubts that the promise applies to him, or if he believes these tablets of Fates-it has already been decreed that you have been rejected (double-predestination), that you are not written in the number of the elect (single predestination), and so forth? In the face of these imaginings we must learn the will of God from the Gospels and understand that the promsise is universal (no unconditional election-my comment), so that faith and prayer can develop (Loci,p.175)
If that is Calvinism, then there is no Arminianism!
The language the Loci was written in or subsequently copied in, while perhaps interesting, is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is the edition. The 1543 Loci is the 1543 Loci regardless of what language it originally or subsequently appeared in. The 1555 Loci is the 1555 Loci regardless of what language it originally or subsequently appeared in.
The times of printing are also irrelevant. The 1521 Loci, for example, was written in 1521 and was the very first published Loci. It was printed and re-printed up until the time Melanchthon died. However, it was and always will be superceded by each subsequent edition of the Loci. In other words, it is irrelevant how and when or how long the various editions of the Loci were printed/published. The essential thing to realize is the year in which it was written.
”No, because edition had been translated twice also into English.
The 1521 Loci has been translated into English twice. Once in the 1940’s and once in the 1960’s. Interesting as this may be, it is completely irrelevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with the 1555 Loci which supercedes any previous Loci. AND, since the 1559 Loci was (obviously to most) written after the 1555 Loci, it, as well, supercedes any previous Loci. For our case, however, the 1559 Loci -which is the final edition of Melanchthon’s Loci- has yet to be translated into English. We are told, though, that the changes from the 1555 Loci to the 1559 Loci were small and minor. So for our case, the 1555 is what we should be looking at to determine the teaching of Melanchthon.
”Thus, the problem is how does the Latin(1543) differ from the German editon of 1555! “
Unless we were discussing the evolution of doctrine in Melanchthon, this is a completely irrelevant question. Since the 1555 Loci was intended by Melanchthon to supercede any previous edition of the Loci -including the 1543 in your possession- the 1555 Loci is what we should be looking at to determine whether or not Melanchthon abandoned predestination and adopted synergism.
”Yet, in German, for a German audience it might read very differently (given Melanchthon's desire not to go against Luther)”
So your saying that Melanchthon would have ‘doctored’ the German editions as a PR ploy? That’s quite a stretch –especially since Luther himself read the Loci and was quite capable of doing so in Latin and had no disagreement.
”I did not say that you had the 1521 edition but that it could have fallen into that 'first class' or second class which contained a number of revisions. However, it would seem that the 1543(Latin) and 1555 (German) fall into that same 'third class' in which the major 'editions' were made.”
No, since the 1555 Loci (again, the specific language, although perhaps interesting to some, is completely irrelevant) is from the ‘third’ class of Loci, it cannot be from the ‘first’ or ‘second’ class.
”Yes,but he states that it (the Latin editon) was 'republished almost up to Melanchthon's death in 1560'.”
As I mentioned before, the 1521 Loci was also published up until his death, but that is completely irrelevant, now, isn’t it?
”Thus, you had 'different' Loci in publication at the same time, a German version of 1555 and a Latin one of 1543. They are both different yet are being published at the same time, the question is how does the Latin differ from the German?”
Again, the language of the various editions of the Loci is completely irrelevant!
My church subscribes to the 1563 Heidelberg Catechims (the only one, btw). This document has been published and republished in more languages than any other Reformation Confession –even to the present day! Nevertheless, it remains the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism.
”No, it is quite simple, we are dealing with two different Loci one Latin, one German, both in the same 'class'(3),(but differing), both being published at the same time, the 'Latin' being republished while the German was being put out!
Quite simple actually!”
Quite irrelevant actually. The 1555 Loci is the 1555 Loci regardless of language and SUPERCEDES ALL PRIOR LOCI!!!
”No, you stated that since Melanchton held salvation to be a process and he was only discussing the Christian walk. Yet, if Luther and Calvin held to the same view, (salvation as a process) Melanchthon's view of the will runs strongly against their's in the same salvation context. “
Yes, I stated that Melanchthon’s comment regarding the ‘causa concerens’ was discussing the entire Christian life which was at that time a common use of the term ‘conversion’. I noted another example from the Heidelberg Catechism –which was ~not~ written by Melanchthon –but practically contemporary with that time. My point at the time was that ‘conversion’ came to mean ~ONLY~ the ‘initial converting’ well after the Reformation. I would thus expect that Calvin and Luther would also use the term in the same way.
The fact that you think you ‘got me’ on this has absolutely nothing to do with my original point. What is your point? How does that go against me defense –even assuming I didn’t know this????
”Now, now, that is the author's interpetation of the statement. Quite the contrary, when someone says that man's will can move toward God without the Holy Spirit that is synergism.”
Well, then, why even note that Wengert mentions this? Why not simply quote the statement by Melanchthon???? Of course you were trying to ~imply~ that Wengert sees things your way. But, as I expected, when I went to the book itself, it shows a completely different context. (I doubt you even had the book to begin with!)
Now, if you were trying to show something Melanchthon said –why quote from Wengert at all?? Why not just quote Melanchthon and the full context!!! -oh, it’s probably because you don’t even know what the full context is!!!! Thus it remains highly disingenuous to quote a small out of context phrase to attempt to support your position. (you see, I know that Melancthon makes similar statements about the ‘natural’ man –but in context he goes on to point out that even this ‘obedience’ is in no way even close to possibly being considered righteous. We must also square this with Melanchthon as he says the will is absolutely PASSIVE when God works on it through his Holy Spirit.
In other words, ftd, if you’re trying to show teachings of Melanchthon –show the context of the quote –not just the bits you like!
”Moreover, I note that you did not deal with the article from the Concise Evangelical Theological Dictionary which makes Malanchton the poster boy for synergism!”
IF, as you say, ~Wengert’s opinion on Melanchthon is irrelevant –than how in tarnation is the opinion of the ‘Concise Evangelical Theological Dictionary’ relevant???? Notice especially the emphasis on Concise!
”Oh,no Calvin did not accept the idea that one was 'passed over'
”The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man would though pious ventures simply to deny, Although it is now sufficently plain that God by his secret counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others (Calvin, Institutes, Bk3,#5,7)”
???????
Of course, as a single predestinarian, I fail to see how this quote becomes a problem for me! Of course those who God ‘passes by’ are rejected by him! Goodness! LOL!
”You cannot have unconditional election without reprobation.”
Tell that to the Lutherans and Melanchthon!
”Single predestination is just a 'cowardly' Calvinism.”
Cowarly Calvinism, huh?
Let’s just take a look at a couple of ‘Cowardly Calvinistic’ documents:
We believe that-- all Adam's descendants having thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of the first man-- God showed himself to be as he is: merciful and just.He is merciful in withdrawing and saving from this perdition those whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable counsel, has elected and chosen in Jesus Christ our Lord by his pure goodness, without any consideration of their works.
He is just in leaving the others in their ruin and fall into which they plunged themselves.
[Article 16: The Doctrine of Election: The Belgic Confession of Faith, 1561](In its composition the author availed himself to some extent of a Confession of the Reformed Chruches in France, written chiefly by John Calvin and published two years earlier. The work of de Bres, however, is not a mere revision of Calvin’s work, but an independent composition. In the Netherlands it was at once gladly received by the churches, and adopted by the National Synods, held during the last three decades of the sixteenth century. After a careful revision, not of the contents but of the text, the Great Synod of Dort in 1618-19 adopted the Confession as one of the Doctrinal Standards of the Reformed Churches, to which all office-bearers of the churches were required to subscribe. Its excellence as one of the best symbolical statements of Reformed doctrine has been generally recognized.)
Consider, also, that the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 doesn’t even speak of reprobation.
More:
I. God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: and all to the praise of His glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.
[Chapter III Of God's Eternal Decree: The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1646]
Another ‘Cowardly Calvinist’ doctrine:
The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decision. For all his works are known to God from eternity (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11). In accordance with this decision he graciously softens the hearts, however hard, of his chosen ones and inclines them to believe, but by his just judgment he leaves in their wickedness and hardness of heart those who have not been chosen. And in this especially is disclosed to us his act--unfathomable, and as merciful as it is just--of distinguishing between people equally lost. This is the well-known decision of election and reprobation revealed in God's Word. This decision the wicked, impure, and unstable distort to their own ruin, but it provides holy and godly souls with comfort beyond words.
[Article 6: God's Eternal Decision: The Cannons of Dort, 1618-19]
And finally, the most ‘Cowardly Calvinist’ statement of all:
We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calls those whom he has chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. For the ones are no better than the others, until God discerns them according to his immutable purpose which he has determined in Jesus Christ before the creation of the world. Neither can any man gain such a reward by his own virtue, as by nature we can not have a single good feeling, affection, or though, except God has first put it into our hearts.
[Article XII: The French Confession -written by none other than the most ‘Cowardly Calvinist’ of them ALL -John Calvin!!!!!, 1559]
Cowardly Calvinism! LOL! (Do you even think before you type????) ROTFLMAO!!!!!
”Let us sum up what each has laid out. I gave you a number of major historians (including Calvinists), about 8-10 I believe. “
None of which were Melanchthon experts, I might add.
”You gave me a single secondary source, a biography. There were also some quotes from other sources.”
You crack me up –stop stop!!!! I can’t take it anymore! LOL!
Put your glasses back on, f –I quoted from far more works than did you –not just ‘one biography’ –LOL! I have roughly 15 books specifically on Melanchthon himself -~NOT~ just ‘general’ dictionary types like you’ve posted from!
”I have quotes from Melanchthon himself, in which he stated that the 'will could move toward God without the Holy Spirit', that the will is involved ”Therefore He expressly offers His universal (promise) and the same statement is made in both chapters(Rom.9:33,10:11)' Everyone who believes in the Son shall not be confounded; Thus He wills that with His mercy there is also a concurrent taking hold of it by our acceptance of the promise.... In addition, we must cling to this comfort regarding the effect of election; God wills that the entire human race not perish, and He always calls through mercy for the sake of His Son. He draws and gathers the church and receives those who assent (Loci, p.175) “
Yes, we all know your accuracy and insistence upon context in your quotes –most notable here by the elipse (hmmmmm….I wonder what you left out) as well your failure to identify which Loci -I’d assume it was your 1543 –which is null and void in the face of the later editions.
Furthermore, I’ve already explained to you and to grams what Melanchthon is saying here –”God calls those who are willing and ~NOT~ those who resist”!!!!! (Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes of 1555, translated by Clyde Manschreck, p 60) How UNWESLEYAN!!!!
Melanchthon also states that when God works on man’s will that man’s will is absolutely passive: ““It is true that God very marvelously illumines and works in conversion, and even during the entire life of the saints, which illumination the human will only receives, and is not a co-worker, and is absolutely passive.” [Lutheran Quarterly, XXXV (1905)] ”If that is Calvinism, then there is no Arminianism!”
As typical, your interpretive skills leave ~A LOT~ to be desired!
Jean
Says it all Jean. I am going to keep that quote..
As usual your scholarship in all things calvinism is outstanding!
It must not be that irrelevant it the German (3rd class) and the Latin (3rd class) differ greatly.
Clearly, they are different even though they belong to the 'third class' of editions.
Unless we were discussing the evolution of doctrine in Melanchthon, this is a completely irrelevant question. Since the 1555 Loci was intended by Melanchthon to supercede any previous edition of the Loci -including the 1543 in your possession- the 1555 Loci is what we should be looking at to determine whether or not Melanchthon abandoned predestination and adopted synergism.
Not necessarily, a German edition may have a different tone then a Latin one considering the audience. Melanchthon would not to do anything to go against Luthers' memory.
So your saying that Melanchthon would have ‘doctored’ the German editions as a PR ploy? That’s quite a stretch –especially since Luther himself read the Loci and was quite capable of doing so in Latin and had no disagreement.
Not if you understand Melanchthon who very sensitive to the feelings of others and not causing controversy.
”Yes,but he states that it (the Latin editon) was 'republished almost up to Melanchthon's death in 1560'.” As I mentioned before, the 1521 Loci was also published up until his death, but that is completely irrelevant, now, isn’t it?
It is? You have a Latin (3rd class) being published at the same time as a German (3rd class) which are both different in some ways.
Just because the German came after the Latin does not mean that the German is going to truly accurately reflect Melanchthon's feelings.
Again, the language of the various editions of the Loci is completely irrelevant!
Well, that is your opinion on it!
I think that a book written in Latin for the 'educated' class and another for the 'common' people may read differently. If maybe, not in content,then in style.
My church subscribes to the 1563 Heidelberg Catechims (the only one, btw). This document has been published and republished in more languages than any other Reformation Confession –even to the present day! Nevertheless, it remains the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism.
A creed is a little different then a man going through an evolution of thought, espically when it moves him away from his own hero.
We saw this same hesitation in regards to the Lords table, when he came down against Luther and for Calvin, yet dragged his feet on making his views known, lest it offend Luther.
Quite irrelevant actually. The 1555 Loci is the 1555 Loci regardless of language and SUPERCEDES ALL PRIOR LOCI!!!
The Loci are divided by 'classes' not dates.
If you Loci and mine are in the same 'class' they have the same changes that moved Melanchthon away from Luthers/Calvins view of the will, toward the proto-Arminian view that the human will has a active part to play in ones salvation.
Yes, I stated that Melanchthon’s comment regarding the ‘causa concerens’ was discussing the entire Christian life which was at that time a common use of the term ‘conversion’. I noted another example from the Heidelberg Catechism –which was ~not~ written by Melanchthon –but practically contemporary with that time. My point at the time was that ‘conversion’ came to mean ~ONLY~ the ‘initial converting’ well after the Reformation. I would thus expect that Calvin and Luther would also use the term in the same way.
Yes, but he differed from them in the fact that human will was now a factor in that conversion.
The fact that you think you ‘got me’ on this has absolutely nothing to do with my original point. What is your point? How does that go against me defense –even assuming I didn’t know this????
The 'point' is that your 'defense' that Melanchthon was only speaking about the Christian life and not conversion itself, falls to the wayside since the issue is that the went against both Luther and Calvin in acknowledging the importance and relevance of the human will in assenting to God, and it could resist God to the point of driving out God's spirit as in the case of Saul.
Well, then, why even note that Wengert mentions this? Why not simply quote the statement by Melanchthon???? Of course you were trying to ~imply~ that Wengert sees things your way. But, as I expected, when I went to the book itself, it shows a completely different context. (I doubt you even had the book to begin with!)
What the author opinion on that subject is is not the issue, the issue is that Melanchthon said that the human will could move toward God without God.
In his comments on the epistle to the Colossians it came to light that he now preferred the doctrine of man as is point of departure in theology, wishing to remove predestination from that position. In his Romans commentary of 1532 also he emphasized this conception, which he regarded as the Pauline view...Melanchthon now considered it necessary to call attention more emphatically to the free will of man. God draws men, but he draws willing men; this word of Chrysostom's had long impressed him and induced him to emphasize man's decision, which later was reproached as synergism ( Melanchthon, by Robert Stupperich, trans.by Robert H. Fisher, Westminister Press, 1960,p.93)
Now, if you were trying to show something Melanchthon said –why quote from Wengert at all?? Why not just quote Melanchthon and the full context!!! -oh, it’s probably because you don’t even know what the full context is!!!!
I quoted from what Malanchthon said in the book of Col. Was anything I quoted from Melancthon's statement incomplete or incoorrect?
What the authors opinion on the clear statement is is not part of the context.
It remains highly disingenuous to quote a small out of context phrase to attempt to support your position. (you see, I know that Melancthon makes similar statements about the ‘natural’ man –but in context he goes on to point out that even this ‘obedience’ is in no way even close to possibly being considered righteous. We must also square this with Melanchthon as he says the will is absolutely PASSIVE when God works on it through his Holy Spirit.
So what! The point is not 'passivity' while the Spirit works, but can the spirit be rejected which Melancthon said it could.
Can natural man move towards God without that Spirit, Melanchton said he could-that is synergism the combination of the human will with God's grace.
Your narrow definition of synergism notwithstanding.
In other words, ftd, if you’re trying to show teachings of Melanchthon –show the context of the quote –not just the bits you like!
I showed what Melanchthon said, that is the context, not the authors interpetation of what is said.
His view on Malanchthon on Col. is not shared by most historians as noted by the quote above from Stupperich.
”Moreover, I note that you did not deal with the article from the Concise Evangelical Theological Dictionary which makes Malanchton the poster boy for synergism!” IF, as you say, ~Wengert’s opinion on Melanchthon is irrelevant –than how in tarnation is the opinion of the ‘Concise Evangelical Theological Dictionary’ relevant???? Notice especially the emphasis on Concise!
One, I am did not quote anything from Melanchton in that work, I am citing the works opinion.
Two, the fact that it is 'concise' does not alter the fact that it was Melanchton who they chose as the example of synergism
”Oh,no Calvin did not accept the idea that one was 'passed over' ”The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man would though pious ventures simply to deny, Although it is now sufficently plain that God by his secret counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others (Calvin, Institutes, Bk3,#5,7)” ??????? Of course, as a single predestinarian, I fail to see how this quote becomes a problem for me! Of course those who God ‘passes by’ are rejected by him! Goodness! LOL!
LOL! They are 'passed over' because they are rejected
”You cannot have unconditional election without reprobation.” Tell that to the Lutherans and Melanchthon!
Why shouldn't I? Gee, I did not know you were a Lutheran!
”Single predestination is just a 'cowardly' Calvinism.” Cowarly Calvinism, huh? Let’s just take a look at a couple of ‘Cowardly Calvinistic’ documents:
What do I care about your 'documents' they are still 'cowardly' no matter how many Calvinists accept them, since as you stated yourself it has no effect on the outcome of anyones salvation, just the appearance that God is not reprobating them (let us hide the blasphmy under the rug)
Some believe in Single Predestination. some, as Arthur Custance, teach that 'Predestination to reprobation is based on foreseen unbelief' (that sound Arminian to me, but ofcourse the 'trick' is that the person cannot believe unless elected-LOL!-my comments) This is not Calvinism (emphasis mine) It is basically the view of Lutheranism, though not of Luther himself. Berkouwer teaches it as well. But Calvin rightly taught, 'Election itself could not stand as set over against reprobation' George Whitefield said, Without doubt the doctrines of election and reprobation ust stand or fall togethter, and Edwin Palmer wrote, 'Election without preterition is theological gobbledygook, a mythical inanity of an uncritical mind. Romans 9 clearly teaches both election and reprobatin. Election implies and necessitates reprobation. And both are ultimately based on Gods sovereign mere good pleasure ( The History and Theology of Calvinism, Curt Daniel, Scholary Reprints, 1993, p.300-301)So your protestations that 'single predestination' is taught is meaningless.
The Roman Catholic church denies that it worships Mary because their documents say so!
Same stupid mindset!
”Let us sum up what each has laid out. I gave you a number of major historians (including Calvinists), about 8-10 I believe. “ None of which were Melanchthon experts, I might add.
Well, Stupperich is stated in the bookjacket as a noted authority on the history of the Reformatin, particularly Melanchthon .
Moreover, I would consider Schaff a standard work that would require a lot of evidence to refute (not just opinion)
Put your glasses back on, f –I quoted from far more works than did you –not just ‘one biography’ –LOL! I have roughly 15 books specifically on Melanchthon himself -~NOT~ just ‘general’ dictionary types like you’ve posted from!
Well, the number of books you have and the number you quoted from are two different things aren't they?
”Therefore He expressly offers His universal (promise) and the same statement is made in both chapters(Rom.9:33,10:11)' Everyone who believes in the Son shall not be confounded; Thus He wills that with His mercy there is also a concurrent taking hold of it by our acceptance of the promise.... In addition, we must cling to this comfort regarding the effect of election; God wills that the entire human race not perish, and He always calls through mercy for the sake of His Son. He draws and gathers the church and receives those who assent (Loci, p.175) “ Yes, we all know your accuracy and insistence upon context in your quotes –most notable here by the elipse (hmmmmm….I wonder what you left out) as well your failure to identify which Loci -I’d assume it was your 1543 –which is null and void in the face of the later editions.
He doesn't say that in the later Loci? He doesn't say that in his commentary on Colossians?
If he didn't say that in the German edition was he trying to hide how far he had come towards free will in respect for Luther?
The one fact that even a liar like you cannot deny is that Melancthon moved away from Luther's slavary of the will, towards an active participation of that will in the salvation/conversion process.
Furthermore, I’ve already explained to you and to grams what Melanchthon is saying here –”God calls those who are willing and ~NOT~ those who resist”!!!!! (Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes of 1555, translated by Clyde Manschreck, p 60) How UNWESLEYAN!!!! Melanchthon also states that when God works on man’s will that man’s will is absolutely passive: ““It is true that God very marvelously illumines and works in conversion, and even during the entire life of the saints, which illumination the human will only receives, and is not a co-worker, and is absolutely passive.” [Lutheran Quarterly, XXXV (1905)]
You have a Melanchthon quote but do not give its source, only where it was cited! As for the quote itself, any Arminian and Weselyian would agree to it!
It just shows how little you know of the Arminian and Wesleyian system.
”If that is Calvinism, then there is no Arminianism!” As typical, your interpretive skills leave ~A LOT~ to be desired!
No, it is your 'skills' that leave much to be desired, since you have interpeted Melanchton according to your own ignorance of not only your own system (pick and choose what you want to believe) and the Arminian system.
Here is Fletcher explaining Wesley's view on on the issue of grace
Thus far Mr. Wesley agrees with Arminius, because he thinks that illustrious divine agreed thus far with the Scriptures, and all the early fathers of the Church. But if Arminius, (as the author of Pietas Oxoniensis affirms, in his letter to Dr. Adams,) "denied, that man's nature is totally corrupt; and asserted, that he hath still* a freedom of will to turn to God, but not without the assistance of grace," Mr. Wesley is no Arminian; for he strongly asserts the total fall of man, and constantly maintains that by nature man's will is only free to evil, and that Divine grace must first prevent, and then continually farther him, to make him willing and able to turn to God.My how Calvinistic Wesley sounds!
In the footnotes in the Works of Arminius, Vol.1, Melanchton's free will views are made evident.
In his exposition of the Nicene Creed, which Melanchthon sent to Crammer in 1550, he thus expresses himself, These fundamental principles must be mantained aganist the Manichees-that it is possible for all men to be converted to God, that the will does not show itself to be purely passive but in some measure active and it can comply with the drawing of God....As this is the point for which Arminianism has been subjected to most underserved obloquy, I considered it a duty to shew at some length what were the avowed opinions of Cranmer, the chief framer-of the 39 Articles of our Church, Melanchthon, Luther and Erasmus, several years prior to the birth of our author. Let the impartial reader declare whether the individual declarations of those holy, wise and learned men, or that of our author, be the most scriptural and moderate. The sentiments of Arminius on Free Will are expressed with great caution and evangelical truth, as our own 10 Article, and is far more explicit than the 18th Article of the Augustan Confession (Footnotep.662)At that point the editor also states
The extracts from Cramner and Melanchthon are also of particular moment in relation to the next article The Grace of God, which in a declaration of this kind, cannot be discusses without embracing a notice concerning its coganate, the freedom of the will. For these articles being two consistent branches of the same doctrine, are mutually illustrative. It will be preceived that Melanchthon's observations apply to the operations of Divine Grace, and he concurrence of the human will, in the matter of conversion(emphasis mine), while those of Cranmer relate principally to the great work of of the Holy Spirit in our santification. (Ibid)What is Arminius view on Grace?
It is an infusion (both of the human understanding and into the will and affections) of all those gifts of the Holy Spirit which appertain to the regeneration and renewing of man-such as faith, hope and charity for without those gracious gifts man is not sufficent to thing, will(emphasis mine) or do any thing that is good....It is that perpetual assistance and continued aid of the Holy Spirit, according to which He acts upon and excites to good the man who has been already renewed, by infusing into him salutary cogitations and by inspiring him with good desires, that he may thus actually will whatever is good; and according to which God may than will and work together with man that man may perform whatever he wills. In this manner, I ascribe grace the Commencement, the Continuance and the Consummation of all Good, and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate, can neither concieve, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist evil temptation without this preventing and exciting, this foilowing and co-operating grace. From this statement it will clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, to much to man's free will....With respect to which I believe, according to the scriptures that many persons can resist the Holy Spirit and reject the grace that is offered ( Ibid, p.663-664)Just like Melanchthon said regarding Saul and David.
For the will could disregard the Word of God, as Saul did of his own free will. but when the mind, hearing and sustaining itself does not resist or indulge in hesitation,but with the aid of the Holy Spirit tries to assent, in this context it is not idle....Pharoah and Saul were not forced but willingly and freely resisted God,....Nor, does the conversion of David take place in the way that a stone might be turned into a fig. But the free choice did something in David. When he heard he rebuke and the promise, he willingly and freely made his confession...(Loci, p.43)As I said before, if Melanchthon was not a 'synergist' ( a modest one as the historian Sheldon describes him to be Vol.3.p.113), then the Calvinists owe an apology to both Arminius and Wesley, who went no further then Melanchthon did in ascribing the human will any power in either salvation or sanctification.
As I always said, Calvinist love to sound like Arminians, since it is the only way they can sound scriptural
Do you have some back-up for this statement? Of course not –it’s pure conjecture on your part. The fact is that all the various editions of the Loci were translated into German. As I stated before, all the editions of the Loci were translated into German:
During the first period of the Loci, 1521-1525, eighteen Latin editions and a number of German translations by Georg Spalatin were printed. In the second period of the Loci, according to Theodor Strobel, 1525-1535, Melanchthon enlarged, edited and altered much of the content of his book. However, the greatest changes came in the third period, variously dated from 1535, or from the 1540’s, to the end of Melanchthon’s life, although only minor changes appeared after 1555. In the third period the Loci was not only enlarged to almost four times its original size, but was basically altered. In the second period Justus Jonas was the chief German translator, and in the third, Melanchthon attempted to give the Loci a wider audience by doing the German himself.
[Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes of 1555, transl. Clyde Manschreck, preface, p. xxiii-xxiv]
So, there your ‘theory’ falls on its face (as usual). All the editions of the Loci were translated into German.
Perhaps it would help to realize that the ‘class’ or ‘period’ of the Loci is a ‘tag’ that historians (specifically George Theodore Strobel) and not Melanchthon put on the development of the Loci.
”Not if you understand Melanchthon who very sensitive to the feelings of others and not causing controversy.”
Yes, a common criticism of Melanchthon. But is it accurate????
”Luther regarded him as the greatest theologian that ever lived and declared that the Loci deserved to stand next to the Bible. Yet, his name was in his own day, and still is, beclouded by suspicion. His gentleness was mistaken for weakness, his learnedness was regarded as questionable rationalism, his refusal to accept Luther without discrimination was painted as rebellion, his struggles to unify Christendom were labled pro-papalism, and his recognition of the worth of Geneva’s great leader was slurred as crypto-Calvinism.”
[Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Manschreck, introduction, p. 14]“Calvin, who had come to Frankfort not only as an official but ‘to exchange thoughts with Melanchthon about religion and the concerns of the Church’, has left a portrait of Melanchthon. Having heard reports about Melanchthon’s ‘soft disposition,’ Calvin was surprised. ‘I wish that our excellent friend N. could behold how much sincerity there is in Philip. All suspicion of double-dealing would entirely vanish!’ “
[Ibid., p. 255]
””Yes,but he states that it (the Latin editon) was 'republished almost up to Melanchthon's death in 1560'.” As I mentioned before, the 1521 Loci was also published up until his death, but that is completely irrelevant, now, isn’t it? “
At any rate, the Loci of 1521 is something new and unheard of before in theological science, a system of doctrinal positions built upon and drawn soley from the word of God. The Loci is more than a mere texbook of Protestant dogmatics. It is at once a living, dynamic and motivating principle…After Melanchthon’s death the Loci continued to be published and various commentaries were written on it. For fifty years it was the text book of theology in the universities of Germany.
[The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon, Melanchthon’s 1521 Loci translated by Charles Leander Hill, introduction, pp. 56-7]
”The Loci are divided by 'classes' not dates.”
Again, for clarification, the ‘classes’ designation of the Loci came not from Melanchthon, but from historians –most notably George Theodore Strobel.
”If you Loci and mine are in the same 'class' they have the same changes that moved Melanchthon away from Luthers/Calvins view of the will, toward the proto-Arminian view that the human will has a active part to play in ones salvation.”
Melanchthon’s position on ‘free-will’ did move away from Luther who did not allow for even ‘free-choice’. The position of ‘free-will’ in Melanchthon is essentially the same as declared in the Canons of Dordt (I realize this will be unacceptable to you as the ‘straw-man’ you raise up as ‘Calvinism’ holds to no ‘free-will’, however that ~is~ what we profess and believe!) Arminianism, however, ~requires~ the will to initiate a ‘decision’ for God of which God does not interfere. This is completely absent in Melanchthon.
”Yes, but he differed from them in the fact that human will was now a factor in that conversion.”
Read the Canons of Dordt –it’s essentially the same ‘factor’.
”The 'point' is that your 'defense' that Melanchthon was only speaking about the Christian life and not conversion itself, falls to the wayside since the issue is that the went against both Luther and Calvin in acknowledging the importance and relevance of the human will in assenting to God, and it could resist God to the point of driving out God's spirit as in the case of Saul. “
In my documentation of my ‘defense’ I also noted where the Heidelberg Catechism states the same thing as Melanchthon. In other words, my ‘defense’ included the fact that ‘conversion’ was considered a life long process at that time –not just with Melanchthon.
”What the author opinion on that subject is is not the issue, the issue is that Melanchthon said that the human will could move toward God without God.
In his comments on the epistle to the Colossians it came to light that he now preferred the doctrine of man as is point of departure in theology, wishing to remove predestination from that position. In his Romans commentary of 1532 also he emphasized this conception, which he regarded as the Pauline view...Melanchthon now considered it necessary to call attention more emphatically to the free will of man. God draws men, but he draws willing men; this word of Chrysostom's had long impressed him and induced him to emphasize man's decision, which later was reproached as synergism ( Melanchthon, by Robert Stupperich, trans.by Robert H. Fisher, Westminister Press, 1960,p.93)
Stupperich notes that Melanchthon’s position was reproached as synergism. Yes, I am in agreement with that. He certainly was accused of doing such. My argument is not that there has been no controversy –there certainly was. I thought we were discussing Melanchthon’s actual position –not just what his position was reproached as.
Interensting, though, I find that your lead-in to this quote has nothing to do with the quote itself.
You ‘claim’ that Melanchthon says that the human will could move toward God without God. Yet, you were not able to provide the quote (that I remember) or it’s proper context –which we know you are unwilling to provide.
Why is this important???? Well, as usual, your reading comprehension tends to be quite poor. For Melanchthon ACTUALLY declares the opposite in the 1555 Loci:
”And place before your eyes Adam and Eve after the Fall, when they stood before God in judgement, trembling with fear. Then they knew that there was no help or council to be had from any creature. They had merited God’s wrath and eternal death, and they would have sunk into eternal death if God in his great mercy had not revealed the promise that the seed would trample on the head of the serpent, and if the Son of God had not thus wrought in them comfort and life.
There Adam and Eve discovered that they were rescued from sin and death, but not through their own powers and free will. From this example we learn how such rescue may also happen in us.
Further, it is also true that we still do not have enough power to keep God’s law; we cannot begin inward obedience in our hearts without divine help and without the Holy Spirit. We cannot continue to produce obedience without the Holy Spirit, for we cannot in and of ourselves ignite in our hearts a firm belief in God, a truly burning love for God, trust in God, patience in suffering, and joy in God. God is neither known nor loved if the Son of God through the Holy Spirit does not first enlighten our soul and heart, creating therin light, comfort, and ardor. The following passage shows this:Romans 8: “It is impossible for the law to make us righteous” [cr. v. 3].
First Corinthians 2:11: “The natural man knows not the Spirit of God,” that is, if God is not present in our natural powers, in our heart and soul, then we are full of doubt and have no firm belief in God. In this condition we pay no attention to God’s wrath, are secure and hard, and proportionately feel punishment if we are not comforted though the gospel of the Holy Spirit; if only natural power is active in us, we face empty despair and eternal death, as seen often in frightening cases like those of Saul, Ahithophel, and Judas.
Let it be further known that for this reason God accordingly gathers to himself an eternal Church and is active in the saints. As soon as Adam and Eve heard the words, “The woman’s seed shall tread on the head of the serpent,” the Son of God kindled faith in them though the Holy Spirit, and they felt comfort, and were drawn out of death, out of the throat of hell, and afterward dwelt with God as the text says, John 14:23, “Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and dwell in him!” And, therefore, through God’s activity in Adam and Eve, a firm belief in God began, based on the promise, as well as trust and love and other virtues. The obedience which the divine law teaches was born [angefangen] in their hearts.”
[Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes of 1555, Loci V –“Of Human Strenght and Free Will”, pp. 57-8]
Again, as we have seen so often in your posts, we see demonstrated before our very eyes your shoddy scholarship and horrible reading comprehension –Melanchthon ACTUALLY taught the opposite of what you declare. Melanchthon believed that man CANNOT move toward God without God.
”I quoted from what Malanchthon said in the book of Col. Was anything I quoted from Melancthon's statement incomplete or incoorrect?
What the authors opinion on the clear statement is is not part of the context.”
First of all, you are unable to provide a sinlge letter that comes before or after that quote –thus you are unable to provide the context –i.e. the reason Wengert states that this is not synergism.
Second, you originally ~were~ trying to imply the author was telling us Melanchthon was a synergist. But since I caught you, you are attempting to ‘spin’ your way out of this. If the author’s opinion wasn’t relevant, then why not just state the quote??? Why even mention the author’s name at all???
Third, your quickness in dismissing this country’s and one of the World’s greatest Melanchthon experts is quite humorous!!!!
”His view on Malanchthon on Col. is not shared by most historians as noted by the quote above from Stupperich.”
Your above quote from Stupperich shows nothing other than that there was later controversy over Melanchthon’s teachings. We already know this.
OH! And don’t forget the entire “Melanchthon on Chrysostom” quote: “Chrysostem says that God draws. However, he draws the one who is willing, ~NOT~ the one who resists.” (emphasis, of course, mine –and- how ‘un-arminian’!)
”What do I care about your 'documents' they are still 'cowardly' no matter how many Calvinists accept them, since as you stated yourself it has no effect on the outcome of anyones salvation, just the appearance that God is not reprobating them (let us hide the blasphmy under the rug)
Some believe in Single Predestination. some, as Arthur Custance, teach that 'Predestination to reprobation is based on foreseen unbelief' (that sound Arminian to me, but ofcourse the 'trick' is that the person cannot believe unless elected-LOL!-my comments) This is not Calvinism (emphasis mine) It is basically the view of Lutheranism, though not of Luther himself. Berkouwer teaches it as well. But Calvin rightly taught, 'Election itself could not stand as set over against reprobation' George Whitefield said, Without doubt the doctrines of election and reprobation ust stand or fall togethter, and Edwin Palmer wrote, 'Election without preterition is theological gobbledygook, a mythical inanity of an uncritical mind. Romans 9 clearly teaches both election and reprobatin. Election implies and necessitates reprobation. And both are ultimately based on Gods sovereign mere good pleasure ( The History and Theology of Calvinism, Curt Daniel, Scholary Reprints, 1993, p.300-301)
So your protestations that 'single predestination' is taught is meaningless.”
Siigggghhhhh! (again, quite literally) ftd, will you ever learn how to do honest scholarship?? You have continually been exposed as a fraud. Nothing has changed I see.
I suppose I could repeat my admonition from my last post to you (Tut! Tut! Tut!) for we find the exact same thing in your ‘quote’ here. No context and quite dishonest in it’s implied conclusion.
I honestly don’t know if this is intentional dishonesty or if it is simply because you lack basic comprehension skills. Perhaps it is a combination of both.
First of all, I remember several months ago you chastised me for quoting from a non-published source (it was in regards to the historical fact according to the author I cited that amillenialism was just as prevelant if not more prevelant than chiliasm in the early church). So tell me, why is not OK for me to quote from non-published source, but OK for you to do so??????
Providentially, for me, I have access to the full work (personally autographed, no less!)
Second, you failed (again either intentionally or simply out of stupid ignorance) to define what just what the author defines as ‘Calvinism’ –or the true ‘Calvinist’ position on predestination.
For the record, I hold to a ‘single’ predestination which states that, while God positively elects ~some~ individuals to Salvation, he passively ~rejects~ the others. This is often stated that God ‘passes over’ the others, or that God ‘passes by’ the others.
You see, your quote is a good quote, but it doesn’t describe what I have stated as the ‘Single Predestination’ I was taught. I have already noted that there are 3 types of predestination. R.C. Sproul happens to distinguish 2 types of ‘double’ predestination and 1 type of ‘single’ predestination. It just so happens that one of the 2 ‘double’ predestination doctrines is identified by Sproul as the ‘Classical Reformed Position’ –even though this is called ‘double’ predestination by Sproul, it ~is~ identical to what I was taught as ‘single’ predestination.
While your quote is a legitimate quote, it describes not my ‘single’ predestination, but the Lutheran position (specifically that of Melanchthon and not Luther). Lutheran theology does not hold to reprobation –even passively. That some in the Reformed camp such as Custance, Berkouwer and Brunner hold to this view, doesn’t make it the same ‘single’ predestination I was taught.
But I needn’t have said all that. I only need to provide the context of the quote. The context you either intentionally or out of mere ignorance left out.
What does Curt Daniels define as true ‘Calvinist’ predestination???
”D. Louis Berkhof gives a succinct definition: “Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice.”…E. Another useful definition is that of the Westminster Confession (III:7). Immediately after discussing election, it says: “The rest of mankind God was pleased according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
F. In a word, reprobation may be defined as non-election. Reprobation is not the same thing as total depravity, foreordination of sin, Supralapsarianism, or Hyper-Calvinism (though these are related to reprobation).
G. Reprobation has two stages in God’s eternal decree. First, there is preterition. This is His external decree to pass some men by. The men, of course, did not yet actually exist, but God first decreed that they will exist and then that He will permit them to fall and incur His wrath. Then God chose some to be saved, and left the rest behind. Second, there is predamnation. Having left some sinners in their sins, He then ordained that they will suffer divine wrath for their sins. Preterition is a purely sovereign act by God, wheras predamnation is an act of pure divine justice.
H. Reprobation is thus as unconditional as election. In this decree, God did indeed foresee Man as sinful, for He had already decreed the entrance of sin. But Man’s sin was not the final cause of reprobation, only the instrumental cause. God is the first and final cause of all things, including both election and reprobation. If men were reprobated because of their sin, then all men would be reprobated, for all men are sinners.
I. So, God decreed to withhold salvation from some sinners. Moreover, He foreordained to withhold from them all the effectual means of salvation. He decreed not to give them faith and repentance. And He further decreed their final end, namely punishment for their sins, thereby glorifying God’s justice, power and wrath.
J. Sometimes, as in R.C. Sproul’s catchy chapter title, reprobation is termed Double Predestination. This term indicates that reprobation is the flip side of election on the predestination coin. In fact, reprobation is the necessary complement of election. For example, I Sam 15:8-10 describes how Samuel sought out which son of Jesse God had chosen. Looking at each of David’s older brothers, he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one. The Lord has not chosen these.” Choice of some necessarily means rejection of the others. Theoretically, God could have chosen none, some or all. He chose only some, and that means that He did not choose the rest.”
[The History and Theology of Calvinism, Curt Daniels, Ch. 47, “The Doctrine of Reprobation”, p. 297-298]
So, it seems that in addition to the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and the French Confession (and thus John Calvin himself) Mr. Daniels (as well as the WCF) actually holds to my position after all.
”Same stupid mindset!”
Same stupid Scholarship, same stupid ftd!!!
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself! This is simply unacceptable. Whether it was done intentionally or out of ignorance is irrelevant. It simply shouldn’t have happened. You consistently have demonstrated this tact. I have caught you many many times in this really awful Scholarship.
You have now demonstrated yourself to be totally and completely irrelevant to these FR discussions. I and the others have the right to simply disregard anything you post. Your continued misuse of quotes without proper context is shameful!!!!
”Well, Stupperich is stated in the bookjacket as a noted authority on the history of the Reformatin, particularly Melanchthon .”
Yes, I have the Stupperich book. When you read the book, you will note that Stupperich makes no judgement on the matter, but does note that “…it was generally known that initiative frequently proceeded from him, that he possessed the fluent pen and happy knack of appropriate expression, so that the most important decisions and opinions as a rule came from him. Even Luther’s death did not alter this situation. Melanchthon was still the leader, even when some of his former students attacked him (Major), and when through the ineptness of others of his students he was drawn into controversies and quarrels. Melanchthon remained the Preceptor for all” (p. 151-2)
”Moreover, I would consider Schaff a standard work that would require a lot of evidence to refute (not just opinion) “
OK, we can play your game. If I, for the sake of argument, grant you Schaff’s position as the norm, it still doesn’t bode well for you:
The result was that the Elector deposed the leaders of both parties, Heshusius and Klebitz, called distinguished foreign divines to the University, and entrusted Zacharias Ursinus (a pupil of Melanchthon) and Caspar Olevianus (a pupil of Calvin) with the task of composing the Heidelberg or Palatinate Catechism, which was published Jan. 19, 1563. It became the principal symbolical book of the German and Dutch branches of the Reformed Church. It gives clear and strong expression to the Calvinistic-Melanchthonian theory of the spiritual real presence, and teaches the doctrine of election, but without a word on reprobation and preterition. In both respects it is the best expression of the genius and final doctrinal position of Melanchthon, who was himself a native of the Palatinate.
[The History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vlm 8, Bk 3, Ch. 133]
Note to ftd: This is the same Heidelberg Catechism which is one of the three confessions (the most important one, no less) of the Dutch and German Reformed (Calvinist) Churches. Schaff says this document represents the “best expression of the genius and final doctrinal of Melanchthon”.
I guess playing by your rules is kinda fun too!
”Well, the number of books you have and the number you quoted from are two different things aren't they?”
Well, if you go back and look through my posts to you and grams, you will notice I have quoted from the great majority of them –not just ‘one’!
”The one fact that even a liar like you cannot deny is that Melancthon moved away from Luther's slavary of the will, towards an active participation of that will in the salvation/conversion process.”
LOL! As Wrigley would say, “Pot, Kettle, Black”. If you have forgotten the meaning of this and need to be reminded of the explanation, I’m sure he’d be glad to fill you in.
”It just shows how little you know of the Arminian and Wesleyian system.”
Tell me, would a Wesleyan/Arminian actually say that God only draws the willing and ~NOT~ those that resist?? Isn’t it Wesleyan/Arminianism which says God draws all men –willing and unwilling????
-ftd –again you have been shown conclusively to be a fraud! You have continued to mis-state quotes and continued to fail giving proper context. You cannot understand the basic evolution of the history of the various editions of the Loci. As I have stated before, you have weighed, measured and you have been found wanting.
I now have every right to put you into the camp of the irrelevant. Evey quote you produce is now suspect. Every statement you make is now disregarded. Your posts simply are asinine!
Jean
There Adam and Eve discovered that they were rescued from sin and death, but not through their own powers and free will.
We do know what they willed don't we:>)
There is a point where all the facts have been laid out, and you are in the 'rhetoric' stage.
I think we have moved into that stage.
Yes, check our Schaff's
He intimated this synergistic view in the 18th article of the altered Augsburg Confession, and in the German edition of the apology of the Confession. But he continued to deny the meritousness of good works; and in the colloquey of Worms of 1557, he declined to condemn the doctrine of the slavery of the human will, because Luther had adhered to it to the end. He was willing to tolerate it as a thelogical opinion (Schaff, Vol.7,p.372)
The fact is that all the various editions of the Loci were translated into German. As I stated before, all the editions of the Loci were translated into German: During the first period of the Loci, 1521-1525, eighteen Latin editions and a number of German translations by Georg Spalatin were printed. In the second period of the Loci, according to Theodor Strobel, 1525-1535, Melanchthon enlarged, edited and altered much of the content of his book. However, the greatest changes came in the third period, variously dated from 1535, or from the 1540’s, to the end of Melanchthon’s life, although only minor changes appeared after 1555. In the third period the Loci was not only enlarged to almost four times its original size, but was basically altered. In the second period Justus Jonas was the chief German translator, and in the third, Melanchthon attempted to give the Loci a wider audience by doing the German himself. [Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine: The Loci Communes of 1555, transl. Clyde Manschreck, preface, p. xxiii-xxiv] So, there your ‘theory’ falls on its face (as usual). All the editions of the Loci were translated into German.
They were? Not according the translator of this Loci
the 1555 German edition of Melanchthons Loci Communes, which is in fact quite different from the Latin edition which was published in 1543...Thus, counting the German edition, there are really four quite different versions of the Loci Communes.(P.8)
The Latin is different then the German, at least the 1555 one is!
Perhaps it would help to realize that the ‘class’ or ‘period’ of the Loci is a ‘tag’ that historians (specifically George Theodore Strobel) and not Melanchthon put on the development of the Loci.
Yea, and it was due to his change in his views from the first 'class' on free will'
”Not if you understand Melanchthon who very sensitive to the feelings of others and not causing controversy.” Yes, a common criticism of Melanchthon. But is it accurate???? ”Luther regarded him as the greatest theologian that ever lived and declared that the Loci deserved to stand next to the Bible. Yet, his name was in his own day, and still is, beclouded by suspicion. His gentleness was mistaken for weakness, his learnedness was regarded as questionable rationalism, his refusal to accept Luther without discrimination was painted as rebellion, his struggles to unify Christendom were labled pro-papalism, and his recognition of the worth of Geneva’s great leader was slurred as crypto-Calvinism.” [Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer, Clyde Manschreck, introduction, p. 14] “Calvin, who had come to Frankfort not only as an official but ‘to exchange thoughts with Melanchthon about religion and the concerns of the Church’, has left a portrait of Melanchthon. Having heard reports about Melanchthon’s ‘soft disposition,’ Calvin was surprised. ‘I wish that our excellent friend N. could behold how much sincerity there is in Philip. All suspicion of double-dealing would entirely vanish!’ “ [Ibid., p. 255]
Melancthon was a compromiser and his attempts to compromise with Rome, even to the point of keeping the Pope showed that!
””Yes,but he states that it (the Latin editon) was 'republished almost up to Melanchthon's death in 1560'.” As I mentioned before, the 1521 Loci was also published up until his death, but that is completely irrelevant, now, isn’t it? “
Not if you have two different versions going around it isn't.
At any rate, the Loci of 1521 is something new and unheard of before in theological science, a system of doctrinal positions built upon and drawn soley from the word of God. ”The Loci are divided by 'classes' not dates.” Again, for clarification, the ‘classes’ designation of the Loci came not from Melanchthon, but from historians –most notably George Theodore Strobel.
So what, the classification deals with the differences between the first class and his shift towards free will.
”If you Loci and mine are in the same 'class' they have the same changes that moved Melanchthon away from Luthers/Calvins view of the will, toward the proto-Arminian view that the human will has a active part to play in ones salvation.” Melanchthon’s position on ‘free-will’ did move away from Luther who did not allow for even ‘free-choice’. The position of ‘free-will’ in Melanchthon is essentially the same as declared in the Canons of Dordt (I realize this will be unacceptable to you as the ‘straw-man’ you raise up as ‘Calvinism’ holds to no ‘free-will’, however that ~is~ what we profess and believe!) Arminianism, however, ~requires~ the will to initiate a ‘decision’ for God of which God does not interfere. This is completely absent in Melanchthon.
See, what a liar you are! Arminianism does not require the will to 'initiate a decsion for God'
— Arminius — I place in subjection to Divine Providence both the free-will and even the actions of a rational creature, so that nothing can be done without the will of God, not even any of those things which are done in opposition to it; … God both wills and performs good acts, but … he only freely permits those which are evil. (Vol 1, p 251, italics in original)
What Arminianism states is that man can reject God, the very thing that Melanchthon himself states about Saul when he notes how Saul drives out the Holy Spirit with 'his free will' (p.175)
”Yes, but he differed from them in the fact that human will was now a factor in that conversion.” Read the Canons of Dordt –it’s essentially the same ‘factor’.
As I said, your 'Creeds' are meaingless, since they are just attempts to hide the unscriptural nature of your system. No different then a RC who claims that the Catholic church does not teach Mary worship therefore they do not worship Mary.
”The 'point' is that your 'defense' that Melanchthon was only speaking about the Christian life and not conversion itself, falls to the wayside since the issue is that the went against both Luther and Calvin in acknowledging the importance and relevance of the human will in assenting to God, and it could resist God to the point of driving out God's spirit as in the case of Saul. “ In my documentation of my ‘defense’ I also noted where the Heidelberg Catechism states the same thing as Melanchthon. In other words, my ‘defense’ included the fact that ‘conversion’ was considered a life long process at that time –not just with Melanchthon.
Irrevelant, the fact is that you cannot resist the Holy Spirit to where you drive Him out and therefore become damned.
”What the author opinion on that subject is is not the issue, the issue is that Melanchthon said that the human will could move toward God without God. In his comments on the epistle to the Colossians it came to light that he now preferred the doctrine of man as is point of departure in theology, wishing to remove predestination from that position. In his Romans commentary of 1532 also he emphasized this conception, which he regarded as the Pauline view...Melanchthon now considered it necessary to call attention more emphatically to the free will of man. God draws men, but he draws willing men; this word of Chrysostom's had long impressed him and induced him to emphasize man's decision, which later was reproached as synergism ( Melanchthon, by Robert Stupperich, trans.by Robert H. Fisher, Westminister Press, 1960,p.93) Stupperich notes that Melanchthon’s position was reproached as synergism. Yes, I am in agreement with that. He certainly was accused of doing such. My argument is not that there has been no controversy –there certainly was. I thought we were discussing Melanchthon’s actual position –not just what his position was reproached as.
Note what Stuppich states, that Melanchthon moved towards free will, emphasizing man's decision, not God's election.
Interensting, though, I find that your lead-in to this quote has nothing to do with the quote itself. You ‘claim’ that Melanchthon says that the human will could move toward God without God. Yet, you were not able to provide the quote (that I remember) or it’s proper context –which we know you are unwilling to provide.
No, the entire context was there. Your constant whining about 'context' is your usual way of lying.
None of that nonsense I omitted had any bearing on the fact that Melanchthon stated that the Holy Spirit could be rejected. Morever, neither Arminius nor Wesley would say one thing differently regarding grace.
Again, as we have seen so often in your posts, we see demonstrated before our very eyes your shoddy scholarship and horrible reading comprehension –Melanchthon ACTUALLY taught the opposite of what you declare. Melanchthon believed that man CANNOT move toward God without God.
Hey, stupid, Arminius and Wesley said the same thing! The issue not moving toward God (which is Pelagianism) but can man resist God.
Thus far Mr. Wesley agrees with Arminius, because he thinks that illustrious divine agreed thus far with the Scriptures, and all the early fathers of the Church. But if Arminius, (as the author of Pietas Oxoniensis affirms, in his letter to Dr. Adams,) "denied, that man's nature is totally corrupt; and asserted, that he hath still* a freedom of will to turn to God, but not without the assistance of grace," Mr. Wesley is no Arminian; for he strongly asserts the total fall of man, and constantly maintains that by nature man's will is only free to evil, and that Divine grace must first prevent, and then continually farther him, to make him willing and able to turn to God. *[This is worded in so ambiguous a manner, as to give readers room to think that Arminius held man hath a will to turn to God before grace prevents (goes before) him, and only wants some Divine assistance to finish what nature has power to begin. In this sense of the words it is I deny Mr. Wesley is an Arminian
”I quoted from what Malanchthon said in the book of Col. Was anything I quoted from Melancthon's statement incomplete or incoorrect? What the authors opinion on the clear statement is is not part of the context.” First of all, you are unable to provide a sinlge letter that comes before or after that quote –thus you are unable to provide the context –i.e. the reason Wengert states that this is not synergism.
Now, how does affect the context of what Melanchthon said-it doesn't!
Moreover, what Wengert states is that Melanchthon did not believe it was synergism and explain why Melanchthon did not.
Which in a strict sense is true, since he is not saying man 'works' but in a broad sense it is since the will can reject God and therefore is a factor in the conversion and the walk.
Second, you originally ~were~ trying to imply the author was telling us Melanchthon was a synergist. But since I caught you, you are attempting to ‘spin’ your way out of this. If the author’s opinion wasn’t relevant, then why not just state the quote??? Why even mention the author’s name at all???
You are such a liar it is unbelievable! Now where did I bring up the authors opinions, what I was dealing with what Melanchton actually wrote as cited by the author!
Third, your quickness in dismissing this country’s and one of the World’s greatest Melanchthon experts is quite humorous!!!!
Well, it seems that I am not the only one 'dismissing' them! It would seem that even some Calvinist historians have done so.
”His view on Malanchthon on Col. is not shared by most historians as noted by the quote above from Stupperich.” Your above quote from Stupperich shows nothing other than that there was later controversy over Melanchthon’s teachings. We already know this.
No, it shows that Melancthon moved towards free will and that was what cause the controversy.
OH! And don’t forget the entire “Melanchthon on Chrysostom” quote: “Chrysostem says that God draws. However, he draws the one who is willing, ~NOT~ the one who resists.” (emphasis, of course, mine –and- how ‘un-arminian’!)
Well, it would seem that Calvin took that statement alot more seriously then you do,
Calvin — We … repudiate the oft-repeated sentiment of Chrysostom, “Whom he draws, he draws willingly;” insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand, and waits to see whether we will be pleased to take his aid.… The Apostle's doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our hearts by his Spirit, and reign in it as his own possession.… The grace of God is effectual in itself.… Augustine justly derides some who arrogate to themselves a certain power of willing …. (Book 2, Chap 3, Sec 10)But then Calvin was a lot smarter then you are so that explains it!
I think I will break here. I will deal with the rest of your 'hot air' tomorrow.
My how rhetorical, what else would one expect from a Calvinist? Certainly not facts
It is? How so? Oh, you do not have to really show anything just run your mouth!
I honestly don’t know if this is intentional dishonesty or if it is simply because you lack basic comprehension skills. Perhaps it is a combination of both. First of all, I remember several months ago you chastised me for quoting from a non-published source (it was in regards to the historical fact according to the author I cited that amillenialism was just as prevelant if not more prevelant than chiliasm in the early church). So tell me, why is not OK for me to quote from non-published source, but OK for you to do so??????
No, what you got caught on was an outright lie.
And I quoted a Calvinist to refute what you said.
I frankly do not even remember what source you appealed to if any.
But you Calvinists think you can saya anything an not get called on it.
Providentially, for me, I have access to the full work (personally autographed, no less!)
So? I brought the book from a place that sells Reformed works, so I would expect Reformed people to have it!
Moreover, if any Calvinist wanted to know where I had gotten the book all they had to do was asked and I would have given them the information, as I did with Dr.Steve
You are as paranoid as Woody!
Must be an 'elect' thing I guess.
Second, you failed (again either intentionally or simply out of stupid ignorance) to define what just what the author defines as ‘Calvinism’ –or the true ‘Calvinist’ position on predestination.
Well, you have the work, so why don't you cite it and then explain how that changes the context of my quote.
It doesn't, you are just blowing smoke as usual.
For the record, I hold to a ‘single’ predestination which states that, while God positively elects ~some~ individuals to Salvation, he passively ~rejects~ the others. This is often stated that God ‘passes over’ the others, or that God ‘passes by’ the others.
'For the Record' no one cares for your definitions of 'cowardly Calvinism'.
Either you are elect or you are reprobate and your euphemisms do not change the reality of what you are teaching and believe. But ofcourse, in order to make you feel better about your blasphmy you can pretend that God 'passes over the nonelect'.
You are not like those mean old Double-Predesination people!
You see, your quote is a good quote, but it doesn’t describe what I have stated as the ‘Single Predestination’ I was taught. I have already noted that there are 3 types of predestination. R.C. Sproul happens to distinguish 2 types of ‘double’ predestination and 1 type of ‘single’ predestination. It just so happens that one of the 2 ‘double’ predestination doctrines is identified by Sproul as the ‘Classical Reformed Position’ –even though this is called ‘double’ predestination by Sproul, it ~is~ identical to what I was taught as ‘single’ predestination.
More meaningless jargon.
Either you are elect or not, it is that simple, so simple even you should be able to grasp it.
While your quote is a legitimate quote, it describes not my ‘single’ predestination, but the Lutheran position (specifically that of Melanchthon and not Luther). Lutheran theology does not hold to reprobation –even passively. That some in the Reformed camp such as Custance, Berkouwer and Brunner hold to this view, doesn’t make it the same ‘single’ predestination I was taught. But I needn’t have said all that. I only need to provide the context of the quote. The context you either intentionally or out of mere ignorance left out. What does Curt Daniels define as true ‘Calvinist’ predestination???
That is the second time you stated that.
You must be going senile!
State what Daniels says and then show how what Calvin, Whitefield, and Palmer is not correct!
”D. Louis Berkhof gives a succinct definition: “Reprobation may be defined as that eternal decree of God whereby He has determined to pass some men by with operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice.”… E. Another useful definition is that of the Westminster Confession (III:7). Immediately after discussing election, it says: “The rest of mankind God was pleased according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. F. In a word, reprobation may be defined as non-election. Reprobation is not the same thing as total depravity, foreordination of sin, Supralapsarianism, or Hyper-Calvinism (though these are related to reprobation). G. Reprobation has two stages in God’s eternal decree. First, there is preterition. This is His external decree to pass some men by. The men, of course, did not yet actually exist, but God first decreed that they will exist and then that He will permit them to fall and incur His wrath. Then God chose some to be saved, and left the rest behind. Second, there is predamnation. Having left some sinners in their sins, He then ordained that they will suffer divine wrath for their sins. Preterition is a purely sovereign act by God, wheras predamnation is an act of pure divine justice. H. Reprobation is thus as unconditional as election. In this decree, God did indeed foresee Man as sinful, for He had already decreed the entrance of sin. But Man’s sin was not the final cause of reprobation, only the instrumental cause. God is the first and final cause of all things, including both election and reprobation. If men were reprobated because of their sin, then all men would be reprobated, for all men are sinners. I. So, God decreed to withhold salvation from some sinners. Moreover, He foreordained to withhold from them all the effectual means of salvation. He decreed not to give them faith and repentance. And He further decreed their final end, namely punishment for their sins, thereby glorifying God’s justice, power and wrath. J. Sometimes, as in R.C. Sproul’s catchy chapter title, reprobation is termed Double Predestination. This term indicates that reprobation is the flip side of election on the predestination coin. In fact, reprobation is the necessary complement of election. For example, I Sam 15:8-10 describes how Samuel sought out which son of Jesse God had chosen. Looking at each of David’s older brothers, he said, “Neither has the Lord chosen this one. The Lord has not chosen these.” Choice of some necessarily means rejection of the others. Theoretically, God could have chosen none, some or all. He chose only some, and that means that He did not choose the rest.” [The History and Theology of Calvinism, Curt Daniels, Ch. 47, “The Doctrine of Reprobation”, p. 297-298] So, it seems that in addition to the Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt and the French Confession (and thus John Calvin himself) Mr. Daniels (as well as the WCF) actually holds to my position after all.
One, I do not care what postion Daniels takes.
Two, that has nothing to do with the quote that I cited from Calvin, Whitefield and Palmer.
Three, election means reprobation-period.
”Same stupid mindset!” Same stupid Scholarship, same stupid ftd!!!
Brillant retort! I noticed that you did not give the context of my statement regarding what I was calling a 'stupid mindset'!
It was the appealing to Creeds as if they could protect you from the reality of anti-Bible position, just like any Catholic appeals to the Councils.
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself! This is simply unacceptable. Whether it was done intentionally or out of ignorance is irrelevant. It simply shouldn’t have happened. You consistently have demonstrated this tact. I have caught you many many times in this really awful Scholarship.
Blah, Blah, Blah, you mean like your scholarship when you said Predestination had been an issue in the early church before Augustine!
You have now demonstrated yourself to be totally and completely irrelevant to these FR discussions. I and the others have the right to simply disregard anything you post. Your continued misuse of quotes without proper context is shameful!!!! ”Well, Stupperich is stated in the bookjacket as a noted authority on the history of the Reformatin, particularly Melanchthon .” Yes, I have the Stupperich book. When you read the book, you will note that Stupperich makes no judgement on the matter, but does note that “…it was generally known that initiative frequently proceeded from him, that he possessed the fluent pen and happy knack of appropriate expression, so that the most important decisions and opinions as a rule came from him. Even Luther’s death did not alter this situation. Melanchthon was still the leader, even when some of his former students attacked him (Major), and when through the ineptness of others of his students he was drawn into controversies and quarrels. Melanchthon remained the Preceptor for all” (p. 151-2)
What he does state is that Melanchthon moved to free will (not allegedly, or possibilty), but that he did and that was caused the controversy.
In his comments on the epistle to the Colossians it came to light that he now preferred the doctrine of man as is point of departure in theology, wishing to remove predestination from that position. In his Romans commentary of 1532 also he emphasized this conception, which he regarded as the Pauline view...Melanchthon now considered it necessary to call attention more emphatically to the free will of man. God draws men, but he draws willing men; this word of Chrysostom's had long impressed him and induced him to emphasize man's decision, which later was reproached as synergismIt seems to me that Stupperich has stated very clearly that he sees Melanchthon as have rejected Predestination and moved towards free will.
”Moreover, I would consider Schaff a standard work that would require a lot of evidence to refute (not just opinion) “ OK, we can play your game. If I, for the sake of argument, grant you Schaff’s position as the norm, it still doesn’t bode well for you:
Now, how can Schaff's view be the 'norm' when the leading Malenchton scholar says otherwise!
Isn't that something!
The result was that the Elector deposed the leaders of both parties, Heshusius and Klebitz, called distinguished foreign divines to the University, and entrusted Zacharias Ursinus (a pupil of Melanchthon) and Caspar Olevianus (a pupil of Calvin) with the task of composing the Heidelberg or Palatinate Catechism, which was published Jan. 19, 1563. It became the principal symbolical book of the German and Dutch branches of the Reformed Church. It gives clear and strong expression to the Calvinistic-Melanchthonian theory of the spiritual real presence, and teaches the doctrine of election, but without a word on reprobation and preterition. In both respects it is the best expression of the genius and final doctrinal position of Melanchthon, who was himself a native of the Palatinate. [The History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, Vlm 8, Bk 3, Ch. 133]
This is known as 'Padding' you just said nothing about anything-typical.
Note to ftd: This is the same Heidelberg Catechism which is one of the three confessions (the most important one, no less) of the Dutch and German Reformed (Calvinist) Churches. Schaff says this document represents the “best expression of the genius and final doctrinal of Melanchthon”.
Note to 'Jean' we are not talking about Melanchthon's influence, we are talking about his move towards 'free will' which view is the 'norm'
I guess playing by your rules is kinda fun too!
Well, you said nothing dealing with the topic.
”Well, the number of books you have and the number you quoted from are two different things aren't they?” Well, if you go back and look through my posts to you and grams, you will notice I have quoted from the great majority of them –not just ‘one’!
I didn't say you just quoted from one, but the primary one was the 'The Quiet Reformer' and a few quotes from your Loci.
”The one fact that even a liar like you cannot deny is that Melancthon moved away from Luther's slavary of the will, towards an active participation of that will in the salvation/conversion process.” LOL! As Wrigley would say, “Pot, Kettle, Black”. If you have forgotten the meaning of this and need to be reminded of the explanation, I’m sure he’d be glad to fill you in. ”It just shows how little you know of the Arminian and Wesleyian system.” Tell me, would a Wesleyan/Arminian actually say that God only draws the willing and ~NOT~ those that resist?? Isn’t it Wesleyan/Arminianism which says God draws all men –willing and unwilling????
No, it does not say that you nitwit! It says that man has to be willing, it is your system that says the it doesn't matter about man's will since God changes it!
You really are quite dense, but that comes from only reading Calvinistic propaganda.
-ftd –again you have been shown conclusively to be a fraud! You have continued to mis-state quotes and continued to fail giving proper context. You cannot understand the basic evolution of the history of the various editions of the Loci. As I have stated before, you have weighed, measured and you have been found wanting. I now have every right to put you into the camp of the irrelevant. Evey quote you produce is now suspect. Every statement you make is now disregarded. Your posts simply are asinine!
LOL! The only thing you have shown by your posts again is that you do not understand Arminianism, and that you have a cowardly, delusional view of Calvinism.
Give me a double-predestination guy anytime, at least they have the guts of their convictions, not this 'whishy-washy- God only Elects, but He doesn't really reprobate (he just passes over!)
But Calvin rightly taught, 'Election itself could not stand as set over against reprobation' George Whitefield said, Without doubt the doctrines of election and reprobation ust stand or fall togethter, and Edwin Palmer wrote, 'Election without preterition is theological gobbledygook, a mythical inanity of an uncritical mind. Romans 9 clearly teaches both election and reprobatin. Election implies and necessitates reprobation. And both are ultimately based on Gods sovereign mere good pleasure
LOL! Yea, like he knew that Predestination was an issue before Augustine!
So far, he hasn't said one thing that contradicted the fact that Melanchthon believed that man could reject God's will, which is a proto-Arminian view. (note Pharoah hardening his own heart, like we have tried to tell you over and over again)
But we are dealing with facts here not your Calvinistic fantasy world.
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.