DOCSLIB.ORG

The Limits Upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon1 Bernard J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE LIMITS UPON ADIAPHORISTIC FREEDOM: LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON1 BERNARD J. VERKAMP Vincennes University, Indiana HEN LUTHER and his principal spokesman, Philip Melanchthon, Wlaunched their attack against the many ecclesiastical laws and regulations which had cropped up over the centuries, it was not so much a matter of attacking the traditions in themselves as it was an attempt to restore the doctrine of solafideism, which in their opinion the traditions had severely jeopardized. Once that doctrine was fully appreciated, Luther wrote, the Christian would "easily and safely find his way through those myriad mandates and precepts of popes, bishops, monas­ teries, churches, princes, and magistrates."2 As it turned out, that way, according to both Luther and Melanchthon, was an adiaphoristic via media. But whether such a path was as "easily and safely" to be discerned as Luther thought, may be doubted; for, as a matter of fact, the adiaphoristic freedom championed by the two Wittenberg Reformers was closely circumscribed by "limits" from without and within, which, because of their subtlety and complexity, could be and not infrequently were overlooked. In what follows, it will be my intention to show exactly what those limits are. I will begin by trying to establish the outer boundaries, or, in other words, the precise locus of the adiaphorism proffered by Luther and Melanchthon. At its sixth session the Council of Trent declared: "Si quis dixerit, nihil praeceptum esse in Evangelio praeter fidem, cetera esse indifferentia, ñeque praecepta, ñeque prohibita, sed libera, aut decern praecepta nihil pertinere ad Christianos: anathema sit."3 In commenting on this *By "adiaphoristic freedom" is to be understood that liberty which one enjoys m the realm of adiaphora Etymologically, the latter term is derived from the Greek verb diapherem, "to differ," and is used therefore in a very general sense to designate those matters which "make no difference" or are "indifferent " The specific sense in which it was employed by Christian theologians, the Reformers in particular, will become clear in the course of the subsequent discussion 2 Tractatus de libértate Christiana (WA 7, 68) The following abbreviations will be used in citing the German and English editions of Luther's works WA Luthers Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1883 ff ), LW Luther's Works (Philadelphia and St Louis, 1955 ff ) 3 Concila Tridentini actorum, ed S Ehses, 5 (Freiburg, 1911) 799, canon 19 This canon was finally approved along with the whole Decree on Justification on Jan 13, 1547 It had first been presented for consideration to the Council fathers on Oct 31, 1546 Ehses notes that the phrase "cetera esse indifferentia" was added by Cardinal de Monte (ibid., ρ 516) 52 LIMITS UPON ADIAPHORISTIC FREEDOM 53 Tridentine canon about a century and a half ago, C. C. E. Schmid remarked that Luther's emphasis upon the Pauline doctrine of justifica­ tion by faith alone was so strong that he was unable to escape the suspicion of teaching that everything but faith is indifferent.4 Apparently the Tridentine Fathers shared that suspicion; for, while Schmid was inclined to think that the above canon was probably directed against some "careless followers" of Luther's evangelical doctrine and not against Luther himself,5 the fact that the decree as a whole does have Luther and Melanchthon very much in mind would suggest that the latter were also the target of canon 19.β This is further substantiated by the fact that already some fifteen years earlier, in his 404 Articles and the Confutatio pontificia, John Eck had accused the Lutherans of subscrib­ ing to the notion that "faith alone is necessary; all other things are entirely free and neither commanded nor prohibited."7 Some scholars in more recent times have also left the impression that the Tridentine Fathers would not have been altogether wrong had they indeed intended the canon as a condemnation of the two Wittenberg Reformers. T. W. Street, in an unpublished study of John Calvin's adiaphorism, has attempted to establish a distinction between Calvin's understanding of adiaphora and that of Luther and Melanchthon, on the grounds that the latter locate the indifference of external acts in their not being "sources of justification."8 C. L. Manschreck suggested much the same when, in introducing a discussion of Melanchthon's role in the adiapho- ristic controversy of 1549, he wrote that "external observances are adiaphora so far as righteousness is concerned; they are not necessary to justification."9 But if that were the case, then Luther and Melanchthon both would have had to have said that all things outside of faith were adiaphora, since, according to both, man is justified by faith alone. 4C C E Schmid, Adiaphora, wissenschaftlich und historisch untersucht (Leipzig, 1809) ρ 617 5 Ibid β During the long discussion that continued from October 1546 to January 1547 on the justification decree, canon 19 received almost no attention at all The conciliar secretary simply reports that it received no comment (Ehses, op cit, pp 761, 517-789) The final form in which it was approved was exactly the same as it was when presented on Oct 31 This lack of discussion of the canon makes it impossible to determine exactly against whom the canon was directed 7 See The Augsburg Confession A Collection of Sources, ed J M Reu (St Louis, 1966) pp 108, 338 8Τ W Street, "John Calvin on Adiaphora An Exposition," unpublished PhD dissertation, Union Theological Seminary (NYC), 1954, pp 255-56 eC L Manschreck, "The Role of Melanchthon m the Adiaphora Controversy," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 49 (1957) 165, hereafter cited as Manschreck, "Controversy " 54 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Manschreck implied that that is precisely what Luther and Melanchthon had had in mind; for he writes that "if one insists that justification is by faith alone, everything else is adiaphoristic.,nu To judge from such remarks, Luther and Melanchthon did indeed teach what the Tridentine canon condemned. But was that actually the case? It would seem not.11 From its position in the Tridentine text, it is clear that the aforementioned canon had reference not to the Reformers' doctrine about "original justification" (the alien righteousness imputed to man) but to their notion of "sanctification" (the "new being" which comes with the appropriation of Christ's righteousness). The same must probably be assumed also of the remarks by Street and Manschreck, since both Luther and Melanchthon were so clear in teaching that in the process of original justification every human action apart from faith ushered coram Deo not only is of no value (notwithstanding its "natural" goodness) but is positively sinful, and therefore not to be conceived of as indifferent. Like the Tridentine canon, therefore, Street and Mans­ chreck probably had in mind only to suggest that according to Luther and Melanchthon everything but faith is indifferent for the Christian insofar as he is a "new man." But can one make even such an assertion? By reason of his faith in Christ, Melanchthon wrote, the Christian is no longer a slave of the law; the law has been abrogated in his regard, and not only the judicial and ceremonial laws but the moral law as well.12 He becomes, in the words of Luther, "the free lord of all, subject to none."13 No longer does he have to prove himself worthy under the law. Although he remains a sinner, he need not despair. The accusations of the law, of the devil, of the pope, of the self, or of anyone else, can no longer overwhelm him. By faith the righteousness of Christ is now his righteousness. His sin will no longer be held against him. He has been accepted as he is. Having recognized God, he can forget himself. His is a share in the lordship of Christ, and he finds that now "everything is free 10 Ibid. "It may be noted that Schmid drew the same conclusion, but made little effort to substantiate it, being more concerned with the philosophical dimensions of adiaphorism. His preoccupation with the latter may be explained in part by the fact that his contemporaries, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher, were also airing their opinions on the theory at about the same time. See I. Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, ed. K. Vorländer (Hamburg, 1956) p. 21; F. Schleiermacher, "Grundlinien einer Kritik der bisherigen Sittenlehre," Werke 1 (Leipzig, 1910) 135-38; Schleiermacher, "Über den Begriff des Erlaubten," Werke 1, 417-44. 12 Melanchthons Werke in Auswahl, ed. R. Stupperich, H. Engelland, et al., 2/1 (Gütersloh, 1952) 125-32; this edition of Melanchthon's works hereafter cited as M W. ™De lib. christ. (WA 7, 49). See, in general, M. E. Marty, "Luther on Ethics: Man Free and Slave," Accents in Luther's Theology, ed. Η. O. Kadai (St. Louis, 1967) pp. 199-227. LIMITS UPON ADIAPHORISTIC FREEDOM 55 and nothing necessary."14 Such, according to Luther and Melanchthon, is the radical freedom enjoyed by every Christian. But is it of an adiaphoristic sort? In its original conception among the ancient Cynic and Stoic philoso­ phers, the term adiaphoron had been used to designate a thing which, when considered in itself, was never of such decisive value or disvalue as not to be able to be rendered either good or evil in the concrete by the human intention.16 Such an understanding of the term was introduced into Christian thought by the Alexandrians Clement and Origen,16 and received some attention from other early Church Fathers like John Chrysostom, John Cassian, and Augustine.17 During the High Middle Ages it figured considerably in the long debate over the intrinsic morality of human actions that was started by Abelard and reached a conclusion of sorts with Thomas Aquinas.18 By the late Middle Ages, however, most of the discussion of adiaphora had shifted to the more specifically theological line of adiaphoristic thought, which had also been under development since apostolic times.19 Along this latter line the emphasis "Epist.
Recommended publications
  • Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 2 (2018): 1-40 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 www.comparativephilosophy.org EARLY PYRRHONISM AS A SECT OF BUDDHISM? A CASE STUDY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY MONTE RANSOME JOHNSON & BRETT SHULTS ABSTRACT: We offer a sceptical examination of a thesis recently advanced in a monograph published by Princeton University Press entitled Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. In this dense and probing work, Christopher I. Beckwith, a professor of Central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, argues that Pyrrho of Elis adopted a form of early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, and that early Pyrrhonism must be understood as a sect of early Buddhism. In making his case Beckwith claims that virtually all scholars of Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy have been operating under flawed assumptions and with flawed methodologies, and so have failed to notice obvious and undeniable correspondences between the philosophical views of the Buddha and of Pyrrho. In this study we take Beckwith’s proposal and challenge seriously, and we examine his textual basis and techniques of translation, his methods of examining passages, his construal of problems and his reconstruction of arguments. We find that his presuppositions are contentious and doubtful, his own methods are extremely flawed, and that he draws unreasonable conclusions. Although the result of our study is almost entirely negative, we think it illustrates some important general points about the methodology of comparative philosophy. Keywords: adiaphora, anātman, anattā, ataraxia, Buddha, Buddhism, Democritus, Pāli, Pyrrho, Pyrrhonism, Scepticism, trilakṣaṇa 1. INTRODUCTION One of the most ambitious recent works devoted to comparative philosophy is Christopher Beckwith’s monograph Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia (2015).
  • Adiaphora, Luther and the Material Culture of Worship Andrew Spicer

    Adiaphora, Luther and the Material Culture of Worship Andrew Spicer

    Adiaphora, Luther and the Material Culture of Worship Andrew Spicer During the seventeenth and eighteenth century, English merchants and travellers to Germany and the Baltic were surprised by the pre-Reformation furnishings that remained in the Lutheran churches they visited, particularly commenting on the altarpieces, organs and statues.1 The survival of these aspects of late medieval worship has been attributed to the so-called ‘preserving power’ of Lutheranism. Significant numbers of images, ecclesiastical plate and vestments together with altarpieces remain even to this day through having been retained by Lutheran congregations.2 Recent scholarship, however, has acknowledged that this material culture has not always survived without some adaptation to accord with the needs of Lutheran worship.3 Furthermore, it has been questioned whether ‘preservation’ or ‘survival’ are the appropriate terms to refer to these items associated with pre-Reformation worship but with which the Lutheran faithful continued to engage.4 Adiaphora has become a convenient term to explain the retention of this ecclesiastical material culture, particularly in relation to religious art and images, within the Lutheran tradition.5 Adiaphora, a Greek term, had its origins in classical philosophy but had been adopted by the some of the Church Fathers. The meaning of the concept gradually evolved so that by the late middle ages, it had come to refer to things that were permitted because they had neither been divinely commanded nor prohibited, as determined by the New Testament. These were matters, which were not regarded as necessary for salvation. It was this understanding of the term that was applied by the Reformers in the early sixteenth century.
  • Xerox University Microfilms

    Xerox University Microfilms

    INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
  • Kant's Doctrine of Religion As Political Philosophy

    Kant's Doctrine of Religion As Political Philosophy

    Kant's Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Author: Phillip David Wodzinski Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/987 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Political Science KANT’S DOCTRINE OF RELIGION AS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY a dissertation by PHILLIP WODZINSKI submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 © copyright by PHILLIP DAVID WODZINSKI 2009 ABSTRACT Kant’s Doctrine of Religion as Political Philosophy Phillip Wodzinski Advisor: Susan Shell, Ph.D. Through a close reading of Immanuel Kant’s late book, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason, the dissertation clarifies the political element in Kant’s doctrine of religion and so contributes to a wider conception of his political philosophy. Kant’s political philosophy of religion, in addition to extending and further animating his moral doctrine, interprets religion in such a way as to give the Christian faith a moral grounding that will make possible, and even be an agent of, the improvement of social and political life. The dissertation emphasizes the wholeness and structure of Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as a book, for the teaching of the book is not exhausted by the articulation of its doctrine but also includes both the fact and the manner of its expression: the reader learns most fully from Kant by giving attention to the structure and tone of the book as well as to its stated content and argumentation.
  • Melanchthon Versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle

    Melanchthon Versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle

    CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Volume 44, Numbers 2-3 --- - - - JULY 1980 Can the Lutheran Confessions Have Any Meaning 450 Years Later?.................... Robert D. Preus 104 Augustana VII and the Eclipse of Ecumenism ....................................... Sieg bert W. Becker 108 Melancht hon versus Luther: The Contemporary Struggle ......................... Bengt Hagglund 123 In-. Response to Bengt Hagglund: The importance of Epistemology for Luther's and Melanchthon's Theology .............. Wilbert H. Rosin 134 Did Luther and Melanchthon Agree on the Real Presence?.. ....................................... David P. Scaer 14 1 Luther and Melanchthon in America ................................................ C. George Fry 148 Luther's Contribution to the Augsburg Confession .............................................. Eugene F. Klug 155 Fanaticism as a Theological Category in the Lutheran Confessions ............................... Paul L. Maier 173 Homiletical Studies 182 Melanchthon versus Luther: the Contemporary Struggle Bengt Hagglund Luther and Melanchthon in Modern Research In many churches in Scandinavia or in Germany one will find two oil paintings of the same size and datingfrom the same time, representing Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, the two prime reformers of the Church. From the point of view of modern research it may seem strange that Melanchthon is placed on the same level as Luther, side by side with him, equal in importance and equally worth remembering as he. Their common achieve- ment was, above all, the renewal of the preaching of the Gospel, and therefore it is deserving t hat their portraits often are placed in the neighborhood of the pulpit. Such pairs of pictures were typical of the nineteenth-century view of Melanchthon and Luther as harmonious co-workers in the Reformation. These pic- tures were widely displayed not only in the churches, but also in many private homes in areas where the Reformation tradition was strong.
  • PROCEEDINGS Table of Contents Basanizein

    PROCEEDINGS Table of Contents Basanizein

    PROCEEDINGS Table of Contents Basanizein. Practical Experience as the Touchstone of Platonic Education ................................................. 1 Francisco Benoni (University of Verona) Concealment, Compulsion, and the Educated Citizen of the Protagoras .................................................... 8 Ryan Drake (Fairfield University) Imag(in)ing Nature and Art in Plato’s Phaedrus......................................................................................... 20 Marina McCoy (Boston University) Aristotle, Philosophêmata, and Aristotle’s Disciplinary History of Philosophy .......................................... 25 Chris Moore (Pennsylvania State University) Aristotle on Pleonexia, Proper Self-Love and the Unity of Justice.............................................................. 32 Marta Jimenez (Emory university) Philodemus and the Peripatetics on the Role of Anger in the Virtuous Life .............................................. 42 David Kaufmann (Transylvania University) Among the Boys and Young Men: Philosophy and Masculinity in Plato’s Lysis ......................................... 50 Yancy Dominick (Seattle University) The Dis-Community of Lovers: Kinship in the Lysis ..................................................................................... 58 Benjamin Frazer-Simser (DePaul University) How to Speak Kata Phusin: Magico-religious Speech in Heraclitus ............................................................ 71 Jessica Elbert Decker (California State University) Heraclitus and the Riddle
  • [Formula of Concord]

    [Formula of Concord]

    [Formula of Concord] Editors‘ Introduction to the Formula of Concord Every movement has a period in which its adherents attempt to sort out and organize the fundamental principles on which the founder or founders of the movement had based its new paradigm and proposal for public life. This was true of the Lutheran Reformation. In the late 1520s one of Luther‘s early students, John Agricola, challenged first the conception of God‘s law expressed by Luther‘s close associate and colleague, Philip Melanchthon, and, a decade later, Luther‘s own doctrine of the law. This began the disputes over the proper interpretation of Luther‘s doctrinal legacy. In the 1530s and 1540s Melanchthon and a former Wittenberg colleague, Nicholas von Amsdorf, privately disagreed on the role of good works in salvation, the bondage or freedom of the human will in relationship to God‘s grace, the relationship of the Lutheran reform to the papacy, its relationship to government, and the real presence of Christ‘s body and blood in the Lord‘s Supper. The contention between the two foreshadowed a series of disputes that divided the followers of Luther and Melanchthon in the period after Luther‘s death, in which political developments in the empire fashioned an arena for these disputes. In the months after Luther‘s death on 18 February 1546, Emperor Charles V finally was able to marshal forces to attempt the imposition of his will on his defiant Lutheran subjects and to execute the Edict of Worms of 1521, which had outlawed Luther and his followers.
  • Life of Philip Melanchthon

    Life of Philip Melanchthon

    NYPL RESEARCH LIBRARIES 3 3433 08235070 7 Life of MELANciTHON m M \ \ . A V. Phu^ji' Mklanchthon. LIFE PHILIP MELAXCHTHOX. Rev. JOSEPH STUMP. A.M., WITH AN IXTKCDCCTIOS BY Rev. G. F. SPIEKER. D.D., /V<jri-iVi.»r .-.-" Cj:»r.-i ~':'sT:.'>y r* sAt LtttkiT^itJt TianiJgiir^ Smtimtry at /LLirSTRATED. Secoxp Epitiox. PILGER PUBLISHING HOUSE READING, PA. XEW YORK. I S g ;. TEE MEW YORK P'REFACE. The life of so distinguished a servant of God as Me- lanchthon deserves to be better known to the general reader than it actually is. In the great Reformation of the sixteenth century, his work stands second to that of Luther alone. Yet his life is comparatively unknown to many intelligent Christians. In view of the approaching four hundredth anni- versary of Melanchthon's birth, this humble tribute to his memory is respectfully offered to the public. It is the design of these pages, by the presentation of the known facts in Melanchthon's career and of suitable extracts from his writings, to give a truthful picture of his life, character and work. In the preparation of this book, the author has made use of a number of r^ biographies of ]\Ielanchthon by German authors, and of such other sources of information as were accessi- ble to him. His aim has been to prepare a brief but sufficiently comprehensive life of Melanchthon, in such a form as would interest the people. To what extent he has succeeded in his undertaking, others must judge. (V) That these pages may, in some measure at least, ac- complish their purpose, and make the Christian reader more familiar with the work and merit of the man of God whom they endeavor to portray, is the sincere wish of Thern Author.A CONTENTS, PAGE Introduction ix CHAPTER I.
  • Philip Melanchthon: Justification As the Renewal of the Intellect and the Will

    Philip Melanchthon: Justification As the Renewal of the Intellect and the Will

    CHAPTER THREE PHILIP MELANCHTHON: JUSTIFICATION AS THE RENEWAL OF THE INTELLECT AND THE WILL Melanchthon has had the dubious honor of being the lupus fabulae of the history of Lutheranism. The reason for this hostility must be understood in context of controversies which followed Luther’s death and resulted in party-forming. The followers of Luther were split into a number of rival parties, two of which the most prominent were the Philippists, who were supporters of Melanchthon’s theology and style, and the Gnesiolutherans, who tried to identify themselves as the genuine followers of Luther.1 Melanchthon tried to formulate Lutheran theology in such a way as to maintain a connection with Calvinist theologians. During Luther’s lifetime, he had already sought an alliance with the Roman Catholic Church. Melanchthon’s ecumenical interests became apparent in Regens- burg (1541) and in the Leipzig interim (1548). The formulations of the interim in particular was interpreted as a deviation from Luther’s teachings. These accusations came from Joachim Mörlin, among others, whose comment embodies the ambivalent status of Melanchthon. He is our Preceptor, and Preceptor he shall be called. But when he speaks about the Lord’s Supper, free will, justifi cation of man, or actions concerning interims, then you, Philip, shall be praised by the devil, but me nevermore.2 Melanchthon’s notion of justifi cation evolved over the years so that the role of renewal in justifi cation varied. His greatest difference from Luther was his way of depicting renewal as the causal renewal of the 1 A third minor party was the Swabachian group, who were followers of Johannes Brenz.
  • Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Early Pyrrhonism As a Sect of Buddhism? a Case Study in the Methodology of Comparative Philosophy

    Comparative Philosophy Volume 9, No. 2 (2018): 1-40 Open Access / ISSN 2151-6014 / www.comparativephilosophy.org https://doi.org/10.31979/2151-6014(2018).090204 EARLY PYRRHONISM AS A SECT OF BUDDHISM? A CASE STUDY IN THE METHODOLOGY OF COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY MONTE RANSOME JOHNSON & BRETT SHULTS ABSTRACT: We offer a sceptical examination of a thesis recently advanced in a monograph published by Princeton University Press entitled Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia. In this dense and probing work, Christopher I. Beckwith, a professor of Central Eurasian studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, argues that Pyrrho of Elis adopted a form of early Buddhism during his years in Bactria and Gandhāra, and that early Pyrrhonism must be understood as a sect of early Buddhism. In making his case Beckwith claims that virtually all scholars of Greek, Indian, and Chinese philosophy have been operating under flawed assumptions and with flawed methodologies, and so have failed to notice obvious and undeniable correspondences between the philosophical views of the Buddha and of Pyrrho. In this study we take Beckwith’s proposal and challenge seriously, and we examine his textual basis and techniques of translation, his methods of examining passages, his construal of problems and his reconstruction of arguments. We find that his presuppositions are contentious and doubtful, his own methods are extremely flawed, and that he draws unreasonable conclusions. Although the result of our study is almost entirely negative, we think it illustrates some important general points about the methodology of comparative philosophy. Keywords: adiaphora, anātman, anattā, ataraxia, Buddha, Buddhism, Democritus, Pāli, Pyrrho, Pyrrhonism, Scepticism, trilakṣaṇa 1.
  • The Formula of Concord As a Model for Discourse in the Church

    The Formula of Concord As a Model for Discourse in the Church

    21st Conference of the International Lutheran Council Berlin, Germany August 27 – September 2, 2005 The Formula of Concord as a Model for Discourse in the Church Robert Kolb The appellation „Formula of Concord“ has designated the last of the symbolic or confessional writings of the Lutheran church almost from the time of its composition. This document was indeed a formulation aimed at bringing harmony to strife-ridden churches in the search for a proper expression of the faith that Luther had proclaimed and his colleagues and followers had confessed as a liberating message for both church and society fifty years earlier. This document is a formula, a written document that gives not even the slightest hint that it should be conveyed to human ears instead of human eyes. The Augsburg Confession had been written to be read: to the emperor, to the estates of the German nation, to the waiting crowds outside the hall of the diet in Augsburg. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, it is quite clear from recent research,1 followed the oral form of judicial argument as Melanchthon presented his case for the Lutheran confession to a mythically yet neutral emperor; the Apology was created at the yet not carefully defined border between oral and written cultures. The Large Catechism reads like the sermons from which it was composed, and the Small Catechism reminds every reader that it was written to be recited and repeated aloud. The Formula of Concord as a „Binding Summary“ of Christian Teaching In contrast, the „Formula of Concord“ is written for readers, a carefully- crafted formulation for the theologians and educated lay people of German Lutheran churches to ponder and study.
  • Philip Melanchthon's Influence on the English Theological

    Philip Melanchthon's Influence on the English Theological

    PHILIP MELANCHTHON’S INFLUENCE ON ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT DURING THE EARLY ENGLISH REFORMATION By Anja-Leena Laitakari-Pyykkö A dissertation submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology University of Helsinki Faculty of Theology August 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Anja-Leena Laitakari-Pyykkö To the memory of my beloved husband, Tauno Pyykkö ii Abstract Philip Melanchthon’s Influence on English Theological Thought during the Early English Reformation By Anja-Leena Laitakari-Pyykkö This study addresses the theological contribution to the English Reformation of Martin Luther’s friend and associate, Philip Melanchthon. The research conveys Melanchthon’s mediating influence in disputes between Reformation churches, in particular between the German churches and King Henry VIII from 1534 to 1539. The political background to those events is presented in detail, so that Melanchthon’s place in this history can be better understood. This is not a study of Melanchthon’s overall theology. In this work, I have shown how the Saxons and the conservative and reform-minded English considered matters of conscience and adiaphora. I explore the German and English unification discussions throughout the negotiations delineated in this dissertation, and what they respectively believed about the Church’s authority over these matters during a tumultuous time in European history. The main focus of this work is adiaphora, or those human traditions and rites that are not necessary to salvation, as noted in Melanchthon’s Confessio Augustana of 1530, which was translated into English during the Anglo-Lutheran negotiations in 1536. Melanchthon concluded that only rituals divided the Roman Church and the Protestants.