|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adiaphora article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm not sure I would say, "the Formula of Concord was crafted to settle the question of the nature of genuine adiaphora". Instead, I believe only Article X of the Formula settled the so-called "Adiaphoristic Controversy". The other articles dealt with other issues and controversies, not related to adiaphora. In addition, the adjective "genuine" seems to be out of place since the Controversy did not address the definition of adiaphora as much as what Lutherans were to do when adiaphoron were forced upon them. The Article does not make a distinction between "genuine" and other kinds of adiaphora.
According to an essay in Abiding Word (CPH,1975) by Lorenz Wunderlich the word "Mitteldinge" seems to have been derived from a phrase meaning "things lying in the middle". The indication is that this word was not used in the Formula. This is important because the word applies a slightly different meaning to the word Adiaphora; emphasizing a middle position between two other positions (a grey area between right and wrong), versus the Formula's phrase "things indifferent".
It should be noted in any discussion of Lutheran theology that the Formula of Concord and the Augsburg Confession, along with five other documents, were complied to form the "Book of Concord", and it is there the individual seeking to read these primary documents should turn. The most recent edition was translated and edited by Theodore Tappert (Fortress Press) while the 1917 version is in public domain and can be found at www.bookofconcord.org.
To date, I have been unsuccessful in finding a copy of either the Augsburg or Leipzig Interims. Has anyone found these? If so, please link these into Wiki.
Also, is anyone able to compare/contrast adiaphora with "tout egal"? Is it just a matter of greek versus french?
Latitudinarianism is probably at best a poor addition to the lead paragraph of this article. Latitudinarianism was a philosophy which was not limited to ecclesiastical practice, but also extended to matters of doctrine and faith, citing the Holy Spirit’s combination with human reason as sufficient basis for truth. “Adiaphora,” on the other hand (especially in Christianity), is not a term used for a philosophy, but rather a term used for the matters themselves which are considered nonessential faith matters. It is possible to be a Christian who believes in the existence of adiaphora without being a latitudinarian. Therefore, it would be improper to insinuate that adiaphora and latitudianiarism are somehow related in essence. Perhaps a section later on in the article focusing on latitudinarianism (which certainly deals with matters of adiaphora) would be appropriate. Cognate247 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I buy your argument. I've started a section as you suggested because I think there is a connection, but as you argue, it's not a strong connection. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Lutheran Augsburg Confession: insufficient quote for meaning
Under the section Adiaphoristic Controversy in Lutheranism, the Augsburg Confession is referred to thus:
The Lutheran Augsburg Confession states that "the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike." (My use of quotation marks here, to assist formatting this Talk page only.)
The fragment "the true unity of the Church" needs completion. The second sentence with "Nor" suggests to modern readers that the first should also be a negative construction. (e.g., "No-one should consider that for ..."). However, it's likely that both sentences are intended to be permissive (e.g., if "Regarding" was substituted). Obviously the source itself should provide the answer.
what about Religious Liberty in common use?
"religious liberty" links to this topic, but this topic contains nothing of relevance to the constant repetition of the term "religious liberty" used fallaciously in the contemporary public debate. This might be the formal term for the subject, but to the layman I don't get it - my late father the preacher might get this, but not I even after decades of church. Mulp (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)