But because the Reformers did not maintain their commitment to that third principle, they fractured the Reformation and split it into many parts as each formed its own creed, which became the authority for truth. As a result of failure to practice priesthood of believers principles, in coming together humbly to seek unity in truth by asking the Spirit to unify them in truth as evidenced in the whole Scripture, each party opposed any whose creed differed from their own.

National Parties and Creeds undermine all Three Principles of the Reformation
As national parties were formed and creeds were enforced three major divisions developed along national lines, with the state churches that accepted either: 1) the Lutheran creed; 2) the Zwingli-Calvin creed; or 3) the Anglican creed. While opposed to each other, they unitedly targeted all who did not accept any of the three but were identified as “Radicals.” These included at least three distinct groups: (a) those who rejected the authority of Scripture for what they considered the more certain leading of the Spirit; (b) those who politicized the Reformation and became involved in the peasants war; and (c) committed Bible students who were determined to finish Reformation. All three of these were treated as Radicals, without distinction.

But recent discoveries have resulted in recognition of the latter as the Fourth Reformation, thus confirming Ellen White's portrayal of the moderates as true reformers. Prominent among these were Anabaptists, who repudiated infant baptism and required adult baptism--many by immersion.

Meanwhile, the great divisions resulting from violation of the third principle of the Reformation gave the Catholic Church just the opportunity it needed. The internal conflicts permitted the Counter Reformation, operating through the Council of Trent to prepare canons, or decrees calculated to unite Catholics even while exploiting Protestant divisions.

These decrees relating to justification landed like a bomb in the Lutheran camp, based on the 1530 Augsburg Confessions and its apology, and split Lutheranism into two warring camps. As they vainly tried to unite in defense against Trent’s charges of heresy their conflict only intensified and resulted in open warfare which lasted three decades.

In the 15 years between Augsburg and Trent: two strains were developing, rigorous adherents of Luther; and Philippists (Melanchthon's party). Despite growing tensions among their followers, Luther and Melanchthon loved and respected each other. Thus, so long as Luther lived, both were accepted as orthodox. Luther was revered by all. Yet, Melanchthon, was the drafter of the confession and chief architect of the state church organization. He had become so influential as to be called, "the Preceptor of Germany."

But this was a major part of the problem. Those adhering to Luther's ultra statements, identifying these as Luther’s views, saw Melanchthon as a compromiser. And, with growing pressure from Trent, whose statements they mistakenly viewed as representing Melanchthon, they impatiently awaited opportunity to attack Philippists and either force them to accept their theology or expose them as heretics and remove them from the church.

Thus, the soil on Luther's grave was still soft when there was an explosion within Lutheranism. Melanchthon, now the only leader of prominence, soon found himself leading only one segment, as the self proclaimed "Gnesio" (genuine) faction declared war upon his "compromises."

Meantime, while the Decrees of Trent were being formed, the Pope and emperor declared war on the Lutheran, Schmalkald league, which they defeated in 1547. But, after several years of continued hostilities, as the Catholics tried to regain their losses by the use of the sword, the 1555 Diet of Augsburg granted legal recognition to Gnesio Lutherans – but not to Philippists.

Through the next two decades of internal conflict, divided Lutheranism continued to weaken in its defense against the Catholic Counter-Reformation with its sharply honed, Trent spear head. For each issue of conflict was stimulated by specific, Trent charges of heresy that confused the issues.

Three Key Issues of the Split
The split on the three significant points of conflict: a) the Eucharist, b) justification, and the closely related issue of c) law and grace, was not uniformly on Calvinist vs Pelagian lines, which the Trent charges sought to imply and which Calvinists assumed. For despite Gnesio charges based on verbal similarities with Trent, Melanchthon was in no way Pelagian, but held a position on justification more nearly in line with Scripture than any other major Reformer.

The Gnesio Lutherans called Melanchthon's emphasis on the function of the will "synergistic." That is, they falsely accused him of teaching the Pelagian doctrine that we are justified by faith plus works, because he did not interpret justification as strictly legal. It was true that some Philippists -- as Melanchthon's followers were called, did tend toward legalism. Meantime, many in the Gnesio party were openly antinomian--which placed them on that issue in the Calvinist camp – the very camp they identified Philippists with because they denied the literal presence of Christ's body and blood in the communion service.

Philippists held that Jesus was truly but not literally present in the communion service. His presence, they held, was spiritual rather than physical. The latter could not be, they argued, since He went bodily to heaven where He remains.

Religious Controversy Produces Political Conflict
Legal recognition by the 1555 Treaty of Augsburg, which they denied to Philippists, permitted Gnesio Lutheran's to consolidate their forces against the "heretical" Philippists. Concerning this Lars Qualben declares: “So pernicious was the spirit of conflict that Gnesio-Lutherans denied the Philippists, after 1557, the right to claim adherence to the Augsburg Confession, thereby excluding them from the benefits of the Religious Peace of Augsburg” (A History of the Christian Church, 283).

This, however, only complicated matters. For to religious schism was now added political division. The Lutheran Princes thus "us[ed] every legitimate means of restraining the theological conflicts," and virtually forced the religious leaders to seek "concord."

Their first two efforts at reconciliation by peace synods failed. So they decided to "secure a fixed doctrine for the separate territorial churches" and then seek to unite by a common confession.

Meanwhile, Flacius, leader of Gnesio Lutherans, became so extreme that many left him to form a "Middle party" which, together with two of Melanchthon's followers eventually prepared the "Formula of Concord." We will see, however, that true unity cannot be secured by creedal authority but depends on the union of individual and corporate submission to the authority of God's word and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with mutual humbling to one another under the authority of that Spirit-directed Word. Thus, the Formula of Concord became a formula of discord. Luther's refusal to challenge his dear friend in whom he had great confidence prevented major schism. But the uncompromising Gnesio posture made conflict inevitable when he should die. Trent's heresy charges shortly before this tragedy assured that the inevitable would quickly become reality.

From 1530 till Luther's untimely death in February, 1546, the Augsburg Confessions served as the formal orthodoxy test. Written by Melanchthon and heartily approved by Luther, it's purpose was to assure unity. But while presenting Luther's position, Melanchthon had also squeezed his own, milder view in. Had the document not been used as a creed but as a statement of faith which encouraged rather than restricted further discussion, his efforts would have truly aided the cause of both truth and unity.

Luther and Calvin Divinely Ordained to Balance Each Other
Concerning relations between Luther and Melanchthon, Ellen White says:

At this time, when Luther so much needed the sympathy and counsel of a true friend, God's providence sent Melanchthon to Wittenberg. Young in years, modest and diffident in his manners, Melanchthon's sound judgment, extensive knowledge, and winning eloquence, combined with the purity and uprightness of his character, won universal admiration and esteem... He soon became an earnest disciple of the gospel, and Luther's most trusted friend and valued supporter; his gentleness, caution, and exactness serving as a complement to Luther's courage and energy. Their union in the work added strength to the Reformation and was a source of great encouragement to Luther (GC 134.2).

In Early Writings she previously put it this way:

I saw that Luther was ardent and zealous, fearless and bold, ... and at times was in danger of going to extremes. But God raised up Melanchthon, who was just the opposite in character, to aid Luther in carrying on the work of reformation. Melanchthon was timid, fearful, cautious, and possessed great patience. He was greatly beloved of God. His knowledge of the Scriptures was great, and his judgment and wisdom excellent... Melanchthon's farseeing caution often averted trouble which would have come upon the cause had the work been left alone to Luther; and ofttimes the work would not have been pushed forward had it been left to Melanchthon alone (EW 224.1).

The gift of caution is vital, but poses the danger of compromise. Yet there is a vast difference between a compromising person--which Melanchthon was not--and one who may exercise too great caution. Indeed, he too was willing to die as a martyr. Regarding his plea to join Luther at the diet of Worms, from which Luther and his friends felt he may not return, she says:

His heart was knit to Luther's, and he yearned to follow him, if need be, to prison or to death. But his entreaties were denied. Should Luther perish, the hopes of the Reformation must center upon his youthful co-laborer. Said the Reformer... "If you survive, my death will be of little consequence" (GC 151.1).

Their mutual affection and the blessing of Melanchthon to Luther is again seen as she compares their relation to that of Paul and Timothy:

The ardent, zealous, indomitable spirit of Paul found repose and comfort in the mild, yielding, retiring disposition of Timothy. ... All that Melanchthon was to Luther, all that a son could be to a loved and honored father, the youthful Timothy was to the tried and lonely Paul (YI 7-10-02).

Moreover, concerning the Augsburg Confessions, she says:

The reformed princes had determined upon having a statement of their views in systematic form, with the evidence from the Scriptures, to present before the Diet; and the task of its preparation was committed to Luther, Melanchthon, and their associates... (GC 207).

Luther, in turn, who highly prized Melanchthon's theological expertise and literary ability, passed the task to him. The Confessions were not entirely adequate because the darkness was not fully passed. But the problem was not in the Confessions, but in their use as a creed. Thus the document designed to unite them proved an agent to divide them. By very nature, creeds subvert both Scripture authority and priesthood of believers--first and third principles of the Reformation.

It was also inevitable that the Formula of Concord, drafted to re-unite Lutheranism nearly half a century later and following three decades of open conflict, should become a new cause of discord; for it, full of contradictions as it was, became a creed to enforce, thus not allowing Scripture to serve as authority.

Tragic it is that the enemy of truth should so thwart the divine, unifying purpose in the beautiful bonds of love and mutual commitment between Luther and Calvin that remind us of David and Jonathan. And how sad that differences regarding truths that were not at the time testing truths should become a vehicle for stimulating division.

Luther was not only given to very strong expressions, but to mystical views that undermined the Reformation, such as con-substantiation. More systematic in theology than Luther and not so steeped in mysticism, Melanchthon more clearly saw issues re: the Lord's supper--one of the two most significant points in conflict. But, highly honoring Luther, he went quietly about seeking to moderate his mysticism without confrontation.

Indeed, Melanchthon's lean toward Calvin's position, a position he himself likely influenced, helped Luther maintain a cordial relation to Calvin, despite Calvin’s failure to accept his doctrine of consubstantiation that had so bitterly alienated him from Zwingli who had more openly repudiated that doctrine, insisting that the Lord's supper was only symbolic and not sacramental. Instead of open repudiation of a sacramental element, Calvin and Melanchthon emphasized the reality of Christ's presence even while treating the bread and wine as symbols and denying that Christ's body and blood were literally present.

Again, on predestination, the second issue in conflict, Melanchthon avoided confronting Luther, but sought to reduce the threat to the role of the human will which the deterministic doctrine of divine election posed. And in this Luther responded to his influence and eventually not only denied that God was responsible for evil, but held that all who choose to believe can be saved.

Meanwhile, without denying the doctrine of predestination itself, Melanchthon placed responsibility for sin on the human will and even portrayed the will as a factor in justification by faith. He no doubt would have more fully developed this concept had it not been for his great respect for and commitment to Luther who for all practical purposes had moved away from his master, whose views in other ways was so helpful, Augustine.

In direct contrast to Melanchthon, who sought to influence without challenging, Trent's doctors deliberately and skillfully designed their decrees in a way to spot light every difference, thus assuring that each should become divisive. With every issue intensified and parties on both sides sure their own was the true position, there was no way to resolve their differences.

Without Luther's support and he himself under fierce attack, Melanchthon could not maintain the unity he had long fostered. Indeed, he and his embattled supporters were accused of betraying the very Confession and Defense he had formulated and that were for a decade and a half recognized as the test of truth. Yet the real cause of division was not their differences but violation of priesthood of believers in substituting the Augsburg Confession and subsequent Defense for Scripture authority.

Thus, right after Luther's death and the issuance of Trent ‘s Decrees on Justification, the wording of those decrees was used to accuse Melanchthon of betraying the Augsburg Confessions. Yet, ironically, while charging him with Romanism, Gnesio Lutherans also accused him of Calvinism--the latter considered more dangerous. Historian Wilhelm Moeler declares:

The good Lutheran watch-word at that time, "Rather Catholic than Calvinist," throws a lurid light on the mutual hostility which divided the ranks of evangelicals;...

Accused of Calvinism!? What an amazing charge! As did no other major Reformer, Melanchthon escaped the Augustinian determinism upon which Calvin developed his entire theology! Indeed, it was his accusers who clung to the doctrine that characterizes Calvinism!

The charge is totally incomprehensible except as we bear in mind that Melanchthon, as did Calvin, denied Luther's most sacred doctrine--the literal flesh and blood of Christ on the table. Calvin's position was basically the same as that of Zwingli, whom Luther rejected as a traitor. But his statement was less offensive. And Calvin’s moderate expressions were no doubt derived from Melanchthon, ever the peace maker, who was willing to face conflict to maintain his principles, but sought in every legitimate way to reduce the area of conflict.

Melanchthon was more pliant and did compromise on ritual (as was Luther) and political issues, but how sad that the primary reason he was branded a compromiser and arch-heretic by fellow Lutherans was his uncompromising insistence on moving away from two serious errors: Luther's consubstantiation; and Augustinian determinism, the root underlying Calvin's forensic-only justification.

Correction of both heresies caused Gnesio Lutherans to this day to identify him as a heretical compromiser and for Calvinist (Reformed) churches to join in this charge on the justification issue. Thus, it was actually his uncompromising position on theology that resulted in his loss of leadership.

To prevent martyrdom by Roman Catholics following the Lutheran defeat in the Schmalkald war, Melanchthon had helped prepare the Leipzig Interim to replace the 1548 Augsburg Interim, which demanded a return to Papal ritual. His purpose was to preserve Protestant doctrine and buy time to deal with issues of ritual. But, already accused of compromise because he denied the real Presence in the bread and wine, this was seized upon to condemn him as a traitor.

Melanchthon’s courageous denial of consubstantiation finally prompted Gnesios to go so far as to deny Philippists any right to claim the Confessions, which he had authored. This had serious political implications. For it deprived Philippists of the legal protection of the 1555 Peace of Augsburg, not only leaving some states vulnerable to Papal aggression, but pitting princes of the various Lutheran German states against each other.

Melanchthon Disciples Join a Middle Party to Form the Articles of Concord Following Melanchthon's death, Gnesio leader, Flacius, became so extreme that many rejected his leadership to form the "Middle" party which, with the princes, were determined to re-unite religiously and politically divided German Lutherans. Failure of two peace-synods to unify by disregarding differences prompted them to prepare a theological formula for re-uniting.

To this end they secured the aid of two former students and supporters of Melanchthon who by then had compromised by backing away from Melanchthon’s denial of the bodily Presence. Nicholas Selnecker and Martin Chemnitz together with “Middle” party representatives developed a compromise formula that maintained the ultra Lutheran insistence on the literal body and blood and allowed some Gnesio statements regarding legal justification , but at times strongly defended the exercise of the will as a function in justification, thus denying the Gnesio view in other ways. The Selnecker-Chemnitz involvement prevented direct indictment of Melanchthon, who had died in 1560. But it did not protect Zwingli, whom Philip Schaff declares was "held up to pious horror for his 'blasphemous'" denial of the literal presence of Christ with the bread and wine.

Concerning the immediate success of the Formula, Qualben states:

Supported by the overwhelming majority of Lutheran states, "it [the formula] immediately assumed a position among the regulative symbols of Lutheranism" (Qualben, 284).

Encouraged by this step, they began the next step by preparing a body of doctrine, in the Book of Concord, that would be accepted by all who subscribed to Luther’s physical presence doctrine, which would thus define “Lutheranism” against both Catholicism and Calvinism as well as against Philippists. This, their means of countering the Decrees, did just what the Council of Trent sought to do. It drove a permanent wedge between the two branches of Lutheranism and between each of them and Calvinist position, thus further strengthening Romanism against Protestantism.

The ‘Lutheran’ charge against Calvinism (Concord) did not deny its determinism, based on divine election -- the root of the problem, as had Melanchthon, but merely followed Luther's effort to correct its extremes by denying its effects. Concerning Melanchthon's position, Moeller states:

Since 1527 Melanchthon had abandoned the deterministic bent of the Reformation and supported the idea of synergism, which should keep the causality of sin aloof from God and assert man's responsibility. Man's salvation can only be accomplished with the aid of co-operative decision of his own will, without any mention of merit on his part being admissible (278).

Melanchthon’s synergy did not mean salvation by faith plus works. He merely insisted that objective justification, which means that justification is entirely an act of God in which we make no contribution, is effected by the subjective element of the response of the believer’s will.

This same charge of Catholic heresy made against Melanchthon by both Gnesio Lutheran’s and Calvinists, whose determinism made it impossible for them to accept an active will, is now placed against Seventh-day Adventist’s -- and for the same false reason. We refuse to make justification a merely legal declaration at the cross in 31 AD. Despite internal conflict resulting from the influence of Desmond Ford, we instead treat justification as a present, objective gift of God that is subjectively received, by faith – without which faith, the transaction of justification does not take place. As available only by a present faith relationship, it is impossible that it be could be a strictly legal decision at the cross. First aimed at SDAs by Brinsmead, this charge of Catholic theology in the early 1970's was soon made by both Ford and Paxton and now echoed by many others. (See section on Plymouth Brethren and its impact on Adventism.)