Discussion Questions

The speaker claims that vision, history, theology, and culture “make up a people group” and that losing any one eventually means losing the whole—where have you personally seen a church try to “hang on with culture” after losing theology or vision, and what did it produce? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen a church try to keep its “culture” after it lost clear theology or a clear vision? What did that lead to?

The speaker says the original Anabaptists were a “third way,” persecuted by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin—how does that historical reality challenge the modern instinct to treat the Reformers as unquestioned heroes or default theological authorities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Knowing the Anabaptists were persecuted by Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, how should that change the way we treat the Reformers today? Does it challenge seeing them as automatic heroes or final authorities?

In the Schleitheim Confession excerpt, baptism is for those who have “learned repentance and amendment of life” and who “walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ”—what does that requirement assume about God’s intentions for converts, and how does it confront common evangelical expectations of speed, ease, and “decisions”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If baptism is for people who have repented and changed their lives, what does that say God wants from new believers? How does that push back on quick, easy “decisions” for Christ?

The speaker contrasts “Romans 3 only” preaching with reading “the whole book of Romans,” especially Romans 6:4—how would early Christians have expected baptism to function in real life, and what practices today communicate a different expectation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you read all of Romans (including Romans 6:4), what would early Christians expect baptism to do in everyday life? What do churches do today that shows a different expectation?

In the Dordrecht Confession quote, Christ becomes “the cause of eternal salvation” for those who “believe in and obey him,” and it says the inheritance excludes “the unbelieving and disobedient”—what picture of God’s justice and mercy is implied here, and why does that phrasing feel “heavy” or controversial to modern Christians? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation is for those who “believe in and obey” Jesus, and it excludes the “unbelieving and disobedient,” what does that say about God’s justice and mercy? Why does that wording feel so heavy or upsetting to many Christians today?

The speaker notes Dordrecht’s language about canceling the “handwriting” and “destroyed the works of the devil,” and he connects this to Christus Victor rather than penal substitution—what is gained or lost (in worship, fear of Satan, or confidence in holiness) when atonement is framed primarily as victory rather than legal penalty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the atonement is mainly Jesus defeating the devil (Christus Victor) instead of paying a legal penalty, what changes in worship and in how we face sin and Satan? What might we lose by focusing on victory instead of penalty, or vice versa?

Dordrecht calls the New Testament “the law of Christ,” and the speaker says early Christians identified this law with the Sermon on the Mount—how does calling Jesus’ teaching “law” confront the common Protestant reflex that “law” equals legalism, and what does it suggest God expects from baptized believers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’ teaching (like the Sermon on the Mount) is called the “law of Christ,” how does that challenge the idea that “law” always means legalism? What does it suggest God expects from baptized believers?

Dordrecht insists that “neither baptism, the Lord’s Supper, church, nor any other outward ceremony can…avail anything” without “faith, regeneration, change, and renewing of life”—how would this have functioned as a direct rebuttal to infant baptism and state-church assumptions, and what modern equivalents of “ceremony without transformation” can you identify? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If baptism, Communion, and church rituals don’t help without real faith and a changed life, how would that argue against infant baptism and state-church thinking? What are modern examples of doing religious things without real life change?

The speaker argues that by the mid-1800s many Mennonites adopted Protestant theology (“saved by faith alone”) while keeping plain dress, becoming “Mennonite Protestants”—what are present-day examples of groups preserving external identity markers while absorbing a different theology, and how can you tell when that shift has happened? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What groups today keep strong outward identity markers but slowly take on a different theology? What signs show that the shift has happened?

When discussing evangelical divorce/remarriage and the claim that the Sermon on the Mount was “not given for us to obey,” the speaker argues the problem is not lack of “saving faith” but lack of willingness to obey—what specific teachings of Jesus would most expose whether your own faith is merely “belief” or truly “believe and obey,” and what costly obedience would a real “U-turn” require in your life or church? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What teachings of Jesus would most clearly show whether your faith is only belief or real “believe and obey”? What hard “U-turn” kind of obedience might your life or church need to make?