Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 3
The teacher admits that believing “we don’t have free will” produced apathy in him toward enslaving sins and a “once saved, always saved” comfort; what parts of that logic feel familiar in modern evangelical Christianity, and where does the teacher think that reasoning quietly gives “license” to stay the same?
Another way to ask: How can believing “we don’t have free will” lead to feeling lazy about sin or too secure in “once saved, always saved”? Where does the teacher think this thinking gives people a quiet excuse to not change?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The teacher describes a familiar evangelical pattern: assurance language (“prayed the sinner’s prayer,” “once saved, always saved”) can function like a “get out of hell free card,” easing urgency about change. In his own life, that reasoning quietly gave him permission to accept bondage as inevitable instead of fighting for obedience.
- He names the belief: “the idea that we don’t have free will,” and says it led him into “apathy towards certain sins that I was enslaved to.”
- His inner logic: “believing that I just couldn’t change… God would understand after all he made me.”
- He admits he “took some comfort” because “I prayed the sinner’s prayer and once saved, always saved.”
- He contrasts this with what he later learned: Christianity is “not just this get out of hell free card… we do have a choice… we need to strive to enter the kingdom at all costs.”
- He says the new covenant aim is cleansing and obedience: God gives a new heart and Spirit “so that we could walk in his requirements… It’s for obedience.”
- He quotes Sirach: God “has given no one license to sin,” tying this directly to refusing blame-shifting.