Discussion Questions

The chapter contrasts early Christian “good works” (obedience to God’s commands) with medieval “good works” (pilgrimages, relics, indulgences); what does that contrast suggest about what God is actually seeking from His people, and how does it challenge the way you instinctively measure “spiritual seriousness”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the difference between early Christian “good works” (obeying God) and medieval “good works” (pilgrimages, relics, indulgences) show about what God really wants? How does it challenge how you judge whether someone is “serious” about their faith?

Bercot insists that medieval Catholic theology did not teach salvation apart from God’s grace, even while indulgence-selling was rampant; how does that complicate the typical Protestant story of “grace rediscovered,” and what does it imply about how God’s grace can be misunderstood or exploited inside the Church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If medieval Catholic teaching still said salvation is by God’s grace, even while indulgences were being sold, how does that change the usual Protestant story that “grace was rediscovered”? What does it show about how grace can be misunderstood or used wrongly inside the Church?

The indulgence episode with Tetzel (including the thief who buys an indulgence “in contemplation of a future sin”) exposes a particular view of sin, repentance, and religious transactions; what view of God is assumed when forgiveness is treated as purchasable and detachable from a changed life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If forgiveness is treated like something you can buy, what does that assume about God? How does that separate forgiveness from real repentance and a changed life?

Luther’s reaction is described as “knee-jerk theology” moving from Tetzel’s extremes to Augustine’s extremes; where do you see the same pendulum dynamics today—overcorrecting doctrinal errors by embracing an opposite error—and what does that reveal about our trust in God’s wisdom versus our desire for tidy systems? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see people today overcorrecting an error by swinging to the opposite extreme? What does that say about trusting God’s wisdom versus wanting a simple, neat system?

Luther is quoted saying that without believing absolute predestination “there can be neither faith nor worship of God,” and that ignorance of this means ignorance of God; what picture of God’s character and what definition of “faith” are operating in that claim, and why would early Christians (as Bercot frames them) likely resist it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Luther says you can’t truly have faith or worship without believing absolute predestination, what kind of God is he picturing, and what does he mean by “faith”? Why would early Christians (as Bercot describes them) likely push back on that?

The chapter says Luther taught humans are totally unable to do anything good or even to have faith, and that God “arbitrarily chose” some for salvation and others for damnation; how does that shape the way a person would pray, evangelize, repent, or pursue holiness—and where does it collide with common evangelical language about a loving God and a genuine gospel invitation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people can’t do any good or even believe, and God chooses some for salvation and others for damnation, how would that change how someone prays, shares the gospel, repents, or seeks holiness? Where does it clash with common evangelical talk about a loving God and a real invitation to everyone?

Bercot highlights Luther’s borrowing of Augustine’s “holy war” thinking and includes Luther’s exhortations to rulers to “stab, smite, slay”; what theological assumptions allow violence to be framed as service to God (even martyrdom), and how does that compare with the early Christian stance implied by Bercot’s “primitive Christianity” standard? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs make it possible to call violence “service to God,” even “martyrdom,” like Luther’s “stab, smite, slay” language? How does that compare to the early Christian approach Bercot points to in “primitive Christianity”?

The peasants’ revolt and Luther’s fear that the rebellion would be blamed on his teaching led him to urge violent suppression; how does the chapter force you to wrestle with the relationship between doctrinal systems and real-world outcomes, especially when “order” and “good conscience” are used to justify brutality? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Luther’s response to the peasants’ revolt make you think about how doctrines can lead to real-world harm? What happens when people use “order” or a “good conscience” to defend brutality?

On Sola Scriptura, Bercot argues it became a slogan because Luther ensured people read the Bible through his interpretations (prefaces, defining terms, ranking Romans, attacking Hebrews); what practices today function similarly—steering people away from “dangerous” texts or preloading conclusions—and how can a group honestly tell when it’s hearing Scripture versus a tradition’s filter? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Sola Scriptura became a slogan while Luther guided how people read the Bible, what do churches or leaders today do that pushes people toward certain conclusions or away from “dangerous” passages? How can a group tell when it’s hearing Scripture itself versus a tradition’s filter?

The chapter ends by claiming the Reformation was “no return” to early Christianity because Luther removed post-Constantinian practices yet reintroduced Augustinian theology, partly because early Christian writings weren’t available; what does that suggest about God’s providence in church history, and what concrete changes would it require in how we evaluate heroes, doctrines “set in stone,” and our own willingness to revise beliefs when better historical or biblical light becomes available? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Reformation removed some practices but brought back Augustine’s theology because early Christian writings weren’t available, what might that say about God’s guidance in church history? How should that change the way we judge heroes, “settled” doctrines, and our own readiness to change when we learn more from history or the Bible?