the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

so on was nothing short of scandalous, since the Pope presumed to wield his authority
over a Christian’s conscience when in fact God and Scripture were the only arbiters of
Christian behaviour. Moreover, the key feature of Luther’s theology was that faith alone
saves, not works (sola fide). Primed by Luther’s reflections on works and human
traditions, the debate over adiaphora exploded in the mid-sixteenth century when the
Emperor Charles V defeated the Protestant princes in battle, imposing severe strictures on
the reforms as part of the terms of the peace treaty. The adiaphora debate arose in the
context of this crisis about Christian freedom and obedience, in terms that are not too
dissimilar from the one about martyrdom discussed above. If a pagan Emperor demanded
that Christians deny Christ, the obligation to martyrdom was clear; but what if the
Emperor imposes demands about matters considered indifferent—about adiaphora?
Melanchthon claimed that, so long as the core message of the Lutheran Reform
movement was not prohibited (justification through faith alone), it was not too terrible to
give up other Lutheran practices (such as the sacrament of confirmation and others) until
conditions improved. 141 Melanchthon’s opponents were horrified that he would give in to
the Emperor so easily, arguing that matters that would be indifferent in peaceful times are
no longer indifferent when they are imposed by force—in such situations, even
(especially!) trivial matters must be defended to the utmost. 142
141 See Bernard J. Verkamp, "The Limits upon Adiaphoristic Freedom: Luther and Melanchthon,"
Theological Studies 36, no. 1 (March 1975): 52-76; Daniel Hyde, "Lutheran Puritanism?: Adiaphora in
Lutheran Orthodoxy and Possible Commonalities in Reformed Orthodoxy," American Theological Inquiry
2, no. 1 (2009): 61-83; G. R. Evans, "Sancta Indifferentia and Adiaphora: 'Holy Indifference' and 'Things
Indifferent'," Common Knowledge 15, no. 1 (2009): 23-38; Robert Kolb, "Confessional Lutheran
Theology," in The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology, 68-79 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2004); Irene Dingel, "The Culture of Conflict in the Controversies Leading to the
Formula of Concord (1548-1580)," in Lutheran Ecclesiastical Culture, 1550-1675, 15-64 (Leiden: Brill,
2008).
142 Melanchthon’s position prevailed for a time and the terms of Charles’ peace were accepted, but
ultimately his position was rejected in the Formula Concordiae several decades later. The FC affirms that
52