# Adiaphora in Lutheran Orthodoxy & Possible Commonalities in Reformed Orthodoxy



## dannyhyde (Jan 14, 2009)

Here is a link to an article that is now in-print as well as available online. It is entitled, "Lutheran Puritanism? Adiaphora in Lutheran Orthodoxy and Possible Commonalities in Reformed Orthodoxy.” American Theological Inquiry 2:1 (January 2009): 61–83.

Thanks to Dr. Robert Kolb (Concordia Seminary, St. Louis) for his stimulating lectures in class back in Jan. 2008 and feedback that made this paper publishable.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 14, 2009)

Excellent article, enjoyable reading.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 15, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 15, 2009)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Excellent article, enjoyable reading.



That was quick, brother!


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 15, 2009)

Perchance is it available either at another location or in another format? I don't know what is going on, but it's locked up my computer twice now while trying to open it.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 15, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Perchance is it available either at another location or in another format? I don't know what is going on, but it's locked up my computer twice now while trying to open it.



Email me: [email protected]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2009)

> Instead of what is not forbidden is permitted, Luther’s principle was whatever was according to the doctrine of justification sola fide was necessary and whatever is not is forbidden.


Very interesting. Douglas Kelly, in his lectures on the RPW in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U implies that Calvin had a view of worship that might be similar in that (according to him) the over-arching priority was to ensure that whatever occurred in worship had to hold forth Christ. I'm not qualified to argue one way or another but wonder if Calvin felt like he was building upon a principle developed by Luther.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 15, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> > Instead of what is not forbidden is permitted, Luther’s principle was whatever was according to the doctrine of justification sola fide was necessary and whatever is not is forbidden.
> 
> 
> Very interesting. Douglas Kelly, in his lectures on the RPW in Systematic Theology II at RTS on iTunes U implies that Calvin had a view of worship that might be similar in that (according to him) the over-arching priority was to ensure that whatever occurred in worship had to hold forth Christ. I'm not qualified to argue one way or another but wonder if Calvin felt like he was building upon a principle developed by Luther.



Hi Rich,

I'd have to listen to the lecture to comment. My article was concerned with understanding the Lutherans on their own terms. Our characterization of the so-called "normative principle" is our deduction, but is reductionistic to say the least.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Jan 15, 2009)

I read the article last evening and much enjoyed it. I especially found your survey of the Reformed approach to "feast-days" helpful. But I was wondering if you came across anything about advent or lent? I noticed that you quoted Bucer speaking about "...the other festivals and seasons which have been prescribed...." Do you think that "seasons" is a reference to advent/lent?


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 15, 2009)

Guido's Brother said:


> I read the article last evening and much enjoyed it. I especially found your survey of the Reformed approach to "feast-days" helpful. But I was wondering if you came across anything about advent or lent? I noticed that you quoted Bucer speaking about "...the other festivals and seasons which have been prescribed...." Do you think that "seasons" is a reference to advent/lent?



Hi Wes,

In Bucer's _Loci Communes_ he distinguishes the Lord's Day as the general festival of the Church from the other festivals, which he describes as Christmas, Ascension, etc.

As far as I know, Advent was not introduced into our Dutch Reformed churches until the late 1800's by the Hervormde.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 15, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > > Instead of what is not forbidden is permitted, Luther’s principle was whatever was according to the doctrine of justification sola fide was necessary and whatever is not is forbidden.
> ...


I caught that part and appreciate drawing it out more clearly rather than allowing me to perpetuate something less than the full truth.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 15, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



I've learned as a student of historical theology, that our systematic and polemical categories have to be rooted in serious historical theological study. We need to understand the Lutherans on their own terms and debate them on the real issue, not on deductions and caricatures, so that we can truly communicate and win them over.


----------

