Discussion Questions

Mike rewrote John 15, Romans 11, and 2 Peter 2 in a joking way to show how his “Protestant/Reformed/Calvinist glasses” changed what he heard; what specific phrases did he add that the actual texts don’t say, and what does that reveal about how a theological system can override plain warnings in Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What extra words did Mike slip into those Bible passages that aren’t really there, and how did they change the meaning? What does that show about how a theology system can drown out the Bible’s clear warnings?

Mike said he kept reading the Sermon on the Mount only to have it “explained away” as “for some other time,” “to show us we really can’t do it,” or “for a future age”; which parts of Jesus’ teaching get neutralized by those moves, and what kind of God do those explanations imply (about what He expects, commands, and enables)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When people say the Sermon on the Mount is “for later” or “just to show we can’t do it,” what teachings of Jesus get watered down? What kind of God do those explanations make Him seem like—what He expects and helps us do?

Mike contrasted Paul’s head covering argument (“headship order” and “nature”) with the claim that it was “Corinthian custom”; what assumptions about apostolic authority are underneath each view, and how would early Christians—who saw the apostles as authoritative commanders—likely have treated a practice argued from creation order? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does each view (creation order vs. “just Corinthian custom”) assume about how much authority Paul and the apostles had? If early Christians saw apostles as commanders, how would they treat a practice Paul argues from creation?

Mike argued that “ideas have consequences” and used divorce/remarriage as an example: Jesus calls it adultery, and Paul says adulterers won’t inherit the kingdom; what does this do to common evangelical instincts about assurance, grace, and “God understands,” and what kind of pastoral costs might come from taking Mike’s line seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus calls divorce and remarriage adultery, and Paul says adulterers won’t inherit the kingdom, how does that challenge common ideas about assurance and “God understands”? What hard pastoral problems might come from taking that seriously?

Mike described how “once saved, always saved” (and the “white robe” idea Elam mentioned) produced a mindset of “freedom and license to sin,” leading to hypocrisy that drives outsiders away; where have you seen doctrine shape culture like that in a church setting, and what would it look like to rebuild a church culture that treats sin as eternally serious without becoming performative? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen a belief like “once saved, always saved” shape a church culture in a way that excused sin or created hypocrisy? What would it look like to build a church culture that takes sin seriously without turning into fake, showy righteousness?

Mike said that after getting a “historic faith / kingdom Christianity lens,” he was shocked that “the exact text” of the New Testament hadn’t changed, yet whole doctrines had “escaped” him before; what does that suggest about human blindness, and how should it change the way your group approaches personal Bible reading and sermon-hearing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Bible text didn’t change but Mike’s whole understanding did, what does that say about how blind we can be? How should that change the way we read the Bible and listen to sermons?

Mike claimed nobody can approach the Bible without “glasses,” and he critiqued both Catholic appeals to church authority (“guided into all truth”) and Protestant appeals to private illumination (“my God time will arrive at truth”); in your experience, how do those two errors actually show up, and what alternative way of knowing truth is Mike trying to build toward? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How have you seen people rely too much on church authority on one side, or on “just me and my Bible” on the other? What different way of finding truth do you think Mike is pointing to?

Mike said the “right prescription” begins with the apostles, then “the unified church they established,” and “the faith once for all delivered” that the church must “guard very carefully”; what practices today (teaching, membership, discipline, catechesis, church life) would need to change if we truly believed the church is a guardian of apostolic tradition rather than a marketplace of opinions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we really believed the church must guard what the apostles taught (not just share opinions), what would need to change in teaching, membership, discipline, training new believers, and daily church life?

Using Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Ephesians 2, Mike elevated the apostles from “bumbling buffoons” to Spirit-empowered men with “perfect knowledge” given for the church’s foundation; what parts of modern Christian media or preaching subtly train us to treat the apostles as relatable failures instead of authoritative messengers, and how does that affect obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What kinds of Christian media or preaching make the apostles seem like lovable screw-ups instead of authoritative messengers? How does that shape whether people obey what the apostles taught?

In the Q&A, Mike said John 3’s “born of water and Spirit” should be read as real water (baptism) plus real inner transformation, and he contrasted that with his upbringing where being “born again” was tied to a sinner’s prayer; what would repentance, baptism, assurance, and discipleship look like in a church that returns to that early-Christian framing—and what resistance would you expect from modern evangelical instincts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “born of water and Spirit” means real baptism plus real inner change (not just a sinner’s prayer), how would a church handle repentance, baptism, assurance, and discipleship differently? What pushback would you expect from modern evangelical habits?