{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03535955502582439, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011124354390147001, 'mean_word_length': 5.038369304556355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 1, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554

B.'s conclusions are well based and clearly presented: (1) Luther used the late-medieval theory of predetermination as a basic notitia about God as the omnipotent creator. (2) Justification is an effect of predetermination rather than the consequence of predestination. (3) Predestination on the notitia level (theoretical reasoning) leads either to the false security of the "left wing" enthusiasts (Schwärmer) or to the insecurity of those who constantly doubt and try to overcome uncertainty with work righteousness. (4) God's unconditional promise of love in the gospel creates faith as "a 'charismatic' experience of certainty" which can live with the most difficult contradictions in the concept of God (on the usus level—existential experience). "In the certainty and uncertainty of the idea of election, we have a clear equivalent to the simul Justus etpeccator of the doctrine of justification" (188-89). There is a wealth of material in this book, since B. follows the classic norms for doctoral dissertations: the constant testing of the interpretation of primary sources in the light of past and present research. Although there are no revolutionary findings, the focus on the idea of retribution in Luther's concept of God (as His "alien work") provides a useful wedge against the popular Swedish judgment (advanced by Anders Nygren in Agape and Eros, 1939) that Luther radically broke with a medieval eros theology by teaching that God is only agape—a "Copernican revolution" in Western theology. B. clearly shows, once again, that Luther's doctrine of divine wrath is rooted in late-medieval theology and does not contradict the article of justification; for faith in God's unconditional promise without meritorious works can live with the notion that God is free to save or damn mankind in the end. Experts on late-medieval theology (especially on Occam and Biel) will not always agree with B., who is not totally clear on what Luther meant by "natural theology" (47). But the question of Luther's indebtedness to late-medieval theology is very complex and loaded with hermeneutical freight, as the recent controversy between Leif Grane and Heiko A. Oberman demonstrates (Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 1977, pp. 56 ff. and 302 ff.). Β. summarizes positions very well and presents a useful approach to a topic which became Luther's original Anfechtung and has plagued many a Christian mind before and after Luther.