Discussion Questions

The speaker praises a statement that treats salvation as “an ongoing process” beginning with the Holy Spirit and continuing in “victory over the flesh, the world, and Satan”; what picture of God’s purpose for saving people is assumed in that framing, and where does it challenge popular “once-and-done” views of salvation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation is a lifelong process led by the Holy Spirit and shown by victory over sin, the world, and Satan, what does that say God is trying to do in saving people? How does this push back on the idea that salvation is “once-and-done”?

The speaker notes that in 1632 (Dortrecht), the authority of Scripture was assumed by Protestants, Catholics, and Mennonites, but by 1914 a chapter defending the Bible became necessary because of modernism; what does that shift suggest about how God expects the church to respond when core truths become contested in its surrounding culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would people in 1632 assume the Bible’s authority, but by 1914 feel they had to defend it because of modernism? What does that teach about how God wants the church to respond when the culture starts arguing against basic truths?

The speaker ties Daniel Kaufman’s “systematic” doctrine-writing and topical preaching outlines to normal-school pedagogy, contrasting it with older “work down through the text” preaching; how might that change in method subtly reshape what Christians think the faith *is* (a lived way vs. a catalog of topics), and what might early Anabaptists have been wary of in that shift? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How could moving from preaching straight through Bible passages to teaching faith as a “system” of topics change how people think about Christianity? What might early Anabaptists have worried that this change would do to real-life discipleship?

Daniel Kaufman criticized “What would Jesus do?” by insisting the real question is “What did Jesus do?” based on the Gospel accounts; how does that approach confront modern habits of projecting our values onto Jesus, and what specific “imaginary Jesus” moves do you notice in yourself or your church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does asking “What did Jesus do?” (based on the Gospels) challenge the habit of making Jesus fit our own values? Where do you see yourself or your church imagining a Jesus who matches what you already prefer?

The speaker points out that Bible Doctrines (1914) introduces penal-substitution language (“penal because of sin and guilt”) but “hardly defines” it; what do you think is gained or lost when a church adopts loaded theological terms without careful definition, and how might that shape how people view God’s justice and mercy? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What happens when a church uses strong theological terms like “penal substitution” without clearly explaining what they mean? How could that shape how people think about God’s justice and God’s mercy?

The Virginia 1918 resolution lists “verbal inspiration,” “substitutionary atonement,” and “personal return of the Lord” as “fundamental doctrines denied by… the new theology”; how do you evaluate their assumption that these doctrines had to be explicitly defended—does it reflect faithfulness, fear, or both, and what does it reveal about what they believed God was like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When leaders in 1918 said they must defend verbal inspiration, substitutionary atonement, and Jesus’ personal return, do you see that as faithfulness, fear, or both? What does their choice of “fundamentals” suggest about the kind of God they believed in?

The speaker argues the fight wasn’t just imagined: Goshen professors used modernist texts, and J.B. Smith circulated postcards of a Goshen student play to alarm ministers; how should a church discern whether a perceived “menace” is real without sliding into propaganda tactics, and what would a godly response look like when truth and alarm get intertwined? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a church tell whether a new teaching is a real danger without using fear tactics or propaganda? What does a godly response look like when true concerns get mixed with alarm and rumors?

In the 1919/1921 articles, government, nonresistance, modest dress, oaths, secret orders, and even life insurance are collapsed into “restrictions,” unlike Dortrecht’s fuller separate articles; what does that category label (“things you’re not supposed to do”) do to the moral and spiritual weight of teachings like nonresistance and oaths, and how might early Christians have framed those same practices? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What happens when teachings like nonresistance and not taking oaths get lumped into a simple list of “restrictions” (things you can’t do)? How might early Christians have explained those practices in a deeper, more positive way?

The speaker says the 1921 Confession is “problematic” because it uses penal/satisfaction atonement language and treats nonresistance and oaths as “restrictions,” calling it “not an improvement on Dortrecht”; if your church has used 1921, where do you see its framing affecting discipleship—either by strengthening obedience or by shrinking discipleship into a list of prohibitions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If your church has used the 1921 Confession, how has its wording shaped discipleship in your church? Has it helped people obey Jesus more, or has it shrunk discipleship into mainly a list of don’ts?

The speaker describes the 1963 confession as theologically “better” than 1921 but lacking “grit,” and he highlights its “winsome” headship/covering language (“does not nullify… rightful freedom… happily serve”) alongside rapid abandonment of coverings in the 1960s; what does that reveal about how modern Christians handle uncomfortable New Testament symbols, and how do you discern whether “gentle language” is pastoral wisdom or a way of softening obedience until it disappears? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a confession uses gentle, positive language about a hard practice (like headship/covering) but the practice still quickly disappears, what does that say about how modern Christians handle uncomfortable Bible symbols? How can you tell when gentle wording is wise care, and when it slowly weakens obedience until it’s gone?