Discussion Questions
The speaker mocks the idea that Jesus gave “commandments…just to show us we can’t live by commandments” and therefore should “just ignore them”; what does that accusation imply about God’s character and intentions in giving commands, and what would it force you to conclude about Jesus as a teacher if it were true? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus gave commands just to prove we can’t keep them and should ignore them, what would that say about what God is like and what he wants? If that were true, what would it mean about Jesus as a teacher?
The sermon frames Anabaptist identity around four anchors—vision, history, theology, and culture—and claims “culture is not enough to keep the Anabaptist movement alive”; where have you personally seen “culture” substitute for the original vision of “a holy people…living as obedient citizens of God’s kingdom,” and what gets lost when that happens? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen Anabaptist “culture” replace the original goal of being a holy people who obey God’s kingdom? What do people lose when culture takes the place of that vision?
The speaker argues Jesus won’t give a “theology quiz” on Judgment Day and points to Matthew 25 as judging “how we lived”; how do you reconcile that emphasis with the way modern evangelicalism often treats correct doctrine about salvation as the central test of being Christian? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus judges us by how we lived (like in Matthew 25), how do you fit that with modern evangelicalism focusing so much on having the right beliefs about salvation? Which one do you think people treat as the real test of being Christian?
He claims Luther’s “faith alone” theology has proven to shape real behavior by implying “obedience is not that important to God”; what specific habits of mind or patterns of preaching have you heard that subtly train people to fear “work salvation” more than they fear disobedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What preaching or ways of thinking have you heard that make people more afraid of “work salvation” than they are afraid of disobeying God? How does that shape how they live?
The speaker critiques singing hymns like “nothing I bring” long after conversion, suggesting repeated messages can form believers into people who feel they must never “bring…godly works”; what kinds of worship language or testimonies in your circles unintentionally reinforce passivity toward obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What worship songs, church language, or personal testimonies have you heard that accidentally teach people to stay passive instead of obeying Jesus? How might those messages make people think good works don’t matter?
In the “litmus test” scenario of two professing Christians who divorce and live in ongoing adultery while remaining active in church and confident of salvation, the speaker refuses the evangelical “they weren’t really saved” explanation; what does his refusal expose about how different traditions protect their theology when confronted with disturbing real-life cases? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the story of two churchgoing Christians who divorce and keep living in adultery but still feel saved, why does the speaker reject the idea “they were never really saved”? What does that show about how different churches defend their beliefs when real-life cases don’t fit?
He appeals to 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (“Do not be deceived…will not inherit the kingdom”) and notes Luther “puts [Paul] above the gospel writers”; how does it change the conversation about assurance and salvation when Paul’s warnings are treated as directly addressed to baptized, churchgoing Christians rather than as hypothetical descriptions of “outsiders”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does it change things if Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 is aimed at baptized, active church members, not just “outsiders”? What would that do to how you think about assurance and salvation?
The speaker’s second litmus test rejects “imputed righteousness” caricatured as a heavenly “bookkeeping ledger” that can label a practicing adulterer as not really an adulterer; what do you think is at stake about God’s justice, truthfulness, and holiness depending on whether righteousness is merely accounted or actually produced in a believer? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “imputed righteousness” is treated like God’s paperwork that can call an adulterer “not really an adulterer,” what does that say about God’s justice and truth? What changes if righteousness must actually show up in how a believer lives?
He claims early Christians explained Christianity to pagans primarily through the Sermon on the Mount and calls it “more central than any of Paul’s letters”; what does that suggest about early Christian assumptions regarding conversion, catechesis, and the visible witness of the church, and how would your evangelism change if you took that claim seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians used the Sermon on the Mount to explain the faith more than Paul’s letters, what does that say about what they expected new believers to learn and live? How would your evangelism change if you took that seriously?
The speaker lists Protestant and historical Catholic ways of explaining away the Sermon on the Mount (unlivable idealism, a future dispensation, “hyperbole,” Augustine’s “love your enemy while running a sword through him”); which of these evasions do you see operating today in subtler forms (politics, self-defense, wealth, oaths, retaliation), and what concrete repentance would it require for your church to treat the Sermon on the Mount as “reality” rather than inspiration? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which excuses for the Sermon on the Mount do you see today in areas like politics, self-defense, money, oaths, or revenge? What specific changes would your church need to make to treat it as something to obey, not just admire?