Discussion Questions

The speaker says reading the early Christians changed his approach because “they look at all the verses” and “don’t hide anything”; what are concrete examples from your own Bible reading where you’ve “hidden” certain passages (even unintentionally) to protect a theological system, and what would it look like to stop doing that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Can you name times you’ve ignored or downplayed certain Bible verses (even without meaning to) to protect what you already believe? What would you do differently to face all the passages honestly?

Using the Beatles “With a Little Help from My Friends” as an illustration, the speaker argues that knowing the language (even Greek) isn’t enough—you need cultural and literary awareness; what specific misunderstandings of Romans (or other NT books) might come from reading modern assumptions into ancient rhetoric, and how would the early Christians help correct them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What misunderstandings of Romans (or other NT books) can happen when we read modern ideas into an ancient letter? How could the early Christians help us read it closer to how it was meant?

The speaker claims Romans 3 begins with Paul using a “common literary device” (a debate with a hypothetical Jewish opponent); how does reading Romans 3:1–8 as an imaginary dialogue change who you think is speaking, what you think is being affirmed, and what you think is being refuted? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans 3:1–8 is a made-up debate between Paul and an imaginary Jewish critic, how does that change who you think is talking in each line? How does it change what Paul is agreeing with or arguing against?

In the dialogue, Paul says the Jews’ chief advantage is that “the oracles of God were entrusted to them”; what does that reveal about God’s intentions in giving Scripture to one people first, and how should that reshape how Christians talk about Israel, privilege, and responsibility? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it mean that the Jews were first trusted with God’s words? How should that shape how Christians talk about Israel, special blessings, and responsibility?

Paul’s answer “let God be true, but every man a liar” is applied to the idea that even if “the whole church became corrupt,” God remains faithful; what would it look like to anchor your assurance in God’s fidelity without sliding into complacency about your own faithfulness and salvation (which the speaker warns can be lost through unfaithfulness)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you trust that God stays faithful even if people or churches fail, without becoming careless about your own faithfulness? What helps you take the warning about falling away seriously without losing hope?

The speaker insists “justify” (dikaioō) is an ordinary judicial word meaning “declare righteous/vindicate,” and he uses Exodus’ warning about “justifying the wicked for bribes”; how does that courtroom meaning of justification challenge modern evangelical ways of talking about justification as a mainly internal experience or a purely theological abstraction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “justify” mainly means a judge declaring someone right (not an inner feeling), how does that challenge common evangelical talk about justification? How does the Exodus example about “clearing the guilty for bribes” affect your view?

When discussing Romans 3:4, the speaker says God would “prevail when you are judged,” meaning God could withstand scrutiny if his dealings with humans were put on trial; what aspects of God’s character (mercy, patience, justice, truthfulness) are being highlighted here, and which of those are hardest for you to trust when you evaluate God’s actions in Scripture or in your life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Romans 3:4 says God would “win” even if put on trial—what does that show about God’s mercy, patience, justice, and truth? Which of those is hardest for you to trust when you look at Scripture or your own life?

Paul’s opponent argues that human unrighteousness “displays the righteousness of God,” so God would be unjust to punish sinners—illustrated by the absurd “bank robber on trial” defense; where do you see versions of that same logic today (for example, excusing sin because “God will get glory anyway”), and why is it so persuasive to religious people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you hear the idea that sin is okay because it will somehow make God look better or bring God glory anyway? Why does that argument sound convincing to religious people?

The speaker calls it “perverted” that some Calvinist works claim God gets glory from punishing the wicked, and he contrasts that with the early Christian dismissal of “let us do evil that good may come”; how does your tradition implicitly portray God’s relationship to human sin—does God merely permit it, use it, delight in displaying judgment, or something else—and how does Romans 3:5–8 pressure-test those assumptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In your tradition, how is God’s connection to human sin usually described—does he only allow it, use it, enjoy judging it, or something else? How do Romans 3:5–8 and the early Christians’ rejection of “do evil so good can come” test that view?

The speaker argues Romans 3:10 (“none righteous”) must be harmonized with “over a hundred verses” calling people righteous, and he presents Origen’s “candle before the sun” analogy (relative righteousness vs God’s absolute righteousness); how does this way of reconciling the texts confront modern claims like “you can’t do anything good” or “humans are helpless,” and what practical obedience, repentance, and daily discipline would you have to change if you truly believed God “expects no more of us than what a fallen human can do,” yet still requires faith and perseverance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Romans 3:10 (“none righteous”) fit with many verses that call some people righteous, like Origen’s “candle vs. the sun” idea? If you believed God expects what fallen humans can actually do, how would that change your daily obedience, repentance, and discipline while still needing faith and perseverance?