The Articles of Smalcald were originally proposed to be presented at Augsburg, but obviously Melanchthon's Augsburg Confession was instead. The Formula of Concord is a commentary and explanation regarding certain articles of the AC. In this, the confessions of the Book of Concord are unlike the diversity of Reformed confessions, which are often at loggerheads with each other over issues such as baptism, election, faith, images, and church government.
# posted by Josh S : 12/07/2005 5:41 PM
For the most part, Josh is simply reiterating distinctions I already drew between the Presbyterian, Dutch-Reformed, and Reformed Baptist confessions.
More to the point, all that’s relevant in a response to McCain is responding to what McCain chose to single out as objectionable in Calvinism. He did not, for example, focus on church government.
Too bad Hays forgot that the doctrine of the Trinity in the form we have today emerged out of controversy over the person of Christ. Whoops.
Posted by Josh Strodtbeck at 07:35 PM
Too Bad Josh forget that the doctrine of the Trinity in the form we have it in the NT was what I referred to in my reply to McCain. Whoops.
I'd like to point out that this is the heart of Josh's original outburst. A segment of the independent Reformed Baptists have claimed the mantle of the "truly reformed," and if you can read Hays and come to any other conclusion, I'll eat my hat on bread. Hays and company believe they are the true reformation. They, rather than Lutherans, embrace sola fide, sola Christus.
I don't see why that fact is even discussable. It's patently obvious.
Posted by Michael Spencer at 07:18 PM
Spencer can’t read any better than Josh can. The debate with McCain is not a debate over who is truly Reformed. Rather, this is a comparison and contrast between Calvinism and Lutheranism. That is how McCain chose to frame the debate, and that’s the framework within which his theological opponents have responded.
Spencer is intruding himself to settle old scores—and some new ones. Spencer has a father-fixation where James White is concerned. So instead of reading what is actually said, he superimposes his father-fixation on anything involving Reformed Baptists.
I said nothing to indicate that I regard Reformed Baptists as the only true exponents of Calvinism—much less the true Reformation. Rather, I brought them into the discussion at this point because they have been the target of Paul McCain’s attack. He has chosen them as his foil, so I’ve responding to him on his own grounds. But that obvious point goes right over Spencer’s head because he is using this debate as a pretext to get a few more licks in with Frank Turk and Dr. White.
And he chooses the oblique approach lest he provoke a response from his true quarry.
I have news for you, Michael. You’re not the center of the universe. This particular debate is not about you and your bad karma.
BTW, notice that he doesn’t have any problem with a Lutheran like Josh as the self-appointed arbiter of who’s truly Reformed.
Then, to finish it all off, Spencer pretends to take offense on behalf of the Lutherans for my contrast between Lutherans and Reformed Baptists. This is yet another double standard.
Again, I’m merely answering McCain on his own terms. McCain chose to cast the issue in terms of which tradition is more Christocentric—the Lutheran or the Reformed.
Notice, once again, that Spencer doesn’t have any problem with McCain framing the debate in those terms, or answering the question in his own favor.
But if I respond in kind, Spencer then pretends that this is somehow improper.