All the hostility comes from the constant bullying, whining, and grandstanding of James White, Phil Johnson, a handful of others, and their fanboys as the paragons of True Reformed Orthodoxy. And frankly, I don't consider Baptists legitimate members of the "Reformed" discussion. If I want to argue about Baptistry, I'll call a Baptist. I don't have any interest in the theology, so I'm not going to.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that James White and Phil Johnson are illegitimate spokesmen for Reformed theology (which I deny), what’s that to you? Why would a Lutheran have a dog in that fight?
That would be an intramural debate between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians, or other suchlike.
From a Lutheran point of view, true Calvinism is just as false as a false version of Calvinism.
So, once again, where is all this animosity hailing from? Why do you care?
I'm not parroting Kobra. I don't even like Kobra.
I’m gratified to learn that Josh is an equal-opportunity misanthropist.
Since Kobra doesn’t get no respect from his fellow Lutherans, he’s welcome to come over to our side.
Steve, what part of election being the last major theological heading in the Formula of Concord did you not understand? Did you notice that the FC doesn't even have a "Doctrine of God" section? What penultimate chapter in Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik flew by you? Predestination in Lutheran theology isn't part of the doctrine of God; it's the cap on the doctrine of the Gospel. But you would know that if you had actually read Pieper's Dogmatics or the Formula of Concord instead of just noticing that both talked about election sometime, somewhere. I don't even need special pleading here. All I need is for you to raise your own personal theological literary awareness.
Once again, Josh is trying to change the subject. It doesn’t matter what comes before Christology or after Christology. McCain’s allegation was that Christology is just as afterthought in Reformed theology. That it takes the Calvinist a long time to get around to Jesus.
My point, which you are unable to refute, but only deflect by hoping that we’ll forget what McCain actually said, is that if you compare representative expositions of Reformed and Lutheran theology, one is no more or less Christocentric than another.
And since, unlike Pieper, the Formula of Concord is online, readers can judge for themselves.
Of course, reading whoknowswhat into the ordering of the chapters of one's systematic theology is a lot different than straight-up listing what your priorities are, especially when your only mention of Jesus is to mention him as a modifier on irresistable grace. Face it, White listed his theological priorities, and Jesus really wasn't one of them.
When you say that in Reformed theology, Jesus is only a modifier on irresistible grace, you simply advertise your theological illiteracy to the world. Why don’t you acquaint yourself with the primary sources instead of regurgitating these thirdhand urban legends about Reformed theology? Are you afraid of the truth?
By the way, the conventional ordering of systematic theologies doesn't come from Calvinism. The structure is based around the articles of the Creed and in Protestantism was first seen in Melanchthon's Loci Communes.
# posted by Josh S : 12/06/2005 4:41 PM
I never said it came from Calvinism. I said it came from Aquinas.