Melanchthonism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I placed in bold the answer confessional Lutherans gave me. It's the Book of Concord which reflects early Luther and Melanchthon thought, true others polished the confessional symbols, but they seem to have strengthened what was already written by Luther.

Your sin the Lord,

jm
I agree. It just seems there story is a bit more complicated. That's all.
 
Here's how the situation appears to my novice eyes. Early Melancthon is on board with Luther on pretty much all things. He is the first to systematize Lutheran theology. Chemnitz lives with him for time and he and others, drafters of the Formula of Concord, learn under his feet. Chemnitz's Loci Theologici is basically comments on, the 1521 and 1535?, the LC. His students love him and respect him. But he starts drifting off into error on the will and from their perspective the Lord's Supper. His "followers" try to make Lutheran theology more in line with later Melancthon. The Gnesio-Lutherans react to this with the Formula of Concord calling out phillipists, not Philip if my memory serves (crapshoot there). The phillipists continue to be a problem invoking Phillip to their cause. Needing to but not wanting to disrespect their beloved mentor and author of the unaltered A.C., Apology, and Treatise on the Power and Primacy of The Pope (not to mention LC until 1535?) are finaly forced to call him out by name in the APOTBC. They do so in reverence but state that he was wrong on the supper and election/free will.
The two previous responses seem correct on the Formula making a middle ground view of election between Luther/early Melancthon and later Melancthon. So as I said complicated. We can appreciate given the history why it took so long for genesio-Lutherans to call him out by name. This is only my rough and novice take on things so I'm open to correction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top