in the Lindberg reading for today (pg 102) I thought it was extremely interesting that people began to do widespread destruction to images and symbols of religion. I did not quite understand the "deconstructed Catholicism and contributed to the construction of Protestantism" --yes while God instructed followers to not make idols, a cross is not an idol. A cross, or the idea of images is surely not a Catholic attempt at idols but rather an attempt for people to be more mindful of religion and given an reminder of faith?

In Lindberg it says: “To Karlstadt, grace was costly, for it meant keeping in step with Jesus and scriptural norms rather than with the prevailing culture” (100).
-I thought this was interesting. 1. It sounded like Karlstadt was bothered by religion. I just thought that was strange for him to be angry for having to "keep up" with Jesus and scripture. 2. Is this the first mention of practicing religion, not necessarily how it was meant to be practiced, but consciously updating it to fit the changing society and culture?

Michelle's question: In 2.1 he speaks about adoration equaling worship. But isn't adoration highly different from worshipping an idolatry?

My question: in source 2.5, he speaks of burning all of the figures and images of Christ and Mary. I can understand why they might have been against the reproduction of religious images and idolatry, but burning and violently destroying these things just seemed almost like they were making a statement against Christ, not just against images and the Church's corruption. Why would they do this?

In 2.14 they speak of the problem of tithe. Even though I looked this term up, I know dictionary.com is always wrong. So, what does tithe really mean?

I had a bunch of question about these readings, as usual. But, I'm only going to ask a few:

1. At the beginning of Hillerbrand's Ch. 7, in Luther's "The Freedom of a Christian," Luther says that he is writing to "make the way smoother for the unlearned." Who did he mean when he said the unlearned? Clearly he did not mean the illiterate because whoever he was writing for would have to be able to read his work. So, did he mean individuals who just didn't understand the meaning of God's Word?

2. Back to the concept of faith and good works (on page 45-46 in Hillerbrand). He talks about why good works are commanded if faith is how we achieve righteousness and salvation. So, Luther asks if we should do no works and be content with just faith. Then he says that we are wicked if we believe this because this would only be proper "if we were wholly inner and perfectly spiritual beings. But such we shall be only at the last day, the day of the resurrection of the dead." Anyways, we discussed a few classes ago how good works would come out of faith. But, is Luther saying here that we need good works because we are not perfect in our faith until death?

I have two questions:
1. Does Luther refer back to the "early church fathers" a lot? I can't tell. It seems that Erasmus thinks that Luther either disregards them or misinterprets them.
2. On pg. 68, Erasmus writes about Judas, "You say, 'What if he had changed his [Judas] mind?' The foreknowledge of God would not have been falsified, nor his will hindered, since he himself would have foreknown and intended beforehand that Judas should change his mind." Is this really free will, if God already knows the next action? Is foreknowledge just a synonym for determinism, which claims that actions are largely a result of previous actions? Personally, I find it hard to reconcile the two and I can't understand how Erasmus does so.

Side Note: This argument reminded me of Harry Frankfurt's argument of the Principle of Alternate Possiblities (and all of the resulting literature for and against it), which attacks the idea that "a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise.”

Since nobody has really posted anything in a while, I figured I would get this trend going again...

In Luther's "Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes" I had a few questions:

1. Why does Luther have the authority to make these claims?
2. He says: "nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful or devilish than a rebel." But would Luther himself be considered a rebel by the greater society?
3. Luther says: "First. I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgement." My questions for this are: Doesn’t this seem a little contradictory? Luther will “not oppose” a ruler that doesn’t follow the Gospel, as long as he will punish the peasants. How can Luther support a ruler that doesn’t tolerate the Gospel, even if he does punish those who act against it?