Discussion Questions

The speaker says Romans 2 is “the key to the entire letter,” and that skipping it makes you “misread the rest of Romans”; what specific interpretive “perspective” does he believe Romans 2 gives that changes how you read Romans 3–4? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What main “lens” does the speaker say Romans 2 gives you, and how does that change how you read Romans 3–4?

The speaker calls it “playing games with God” when people jump to Romans 3–4, using the will/estate illustration (starting at “paragraph 3” to benefit Andre); what are the modern Christian motivations or fears that might drive someone to handle Romans that way, and what would repentance look like in how we read Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why might Christians skip ahead to Romans 3–4 to feel safe, and what would it look like to repent in the way we read the Bible?

The speaker insists, “Any theology that makes Paul contradict Jesus is bad theology,” and criticizes teaching that says, “You can’t go to the teachings of Jesus—you’ve got to go to Paul”; where have you seen that functional separation in church culture, and what practical effects does it have on obedience, assurance, and the way people talk about salvation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen churches act like Jesus’ teachings matter less than Paul’s, and how does that affect obedience, assurance, and how people talk about being saved?

He says early Christians reading Romans were “constantly quoting Jesus” and would be shocked by treating Paul as a rival to Jesus; what does that reveal about their assumptions regarding authority, interpretation, and how doctrine should be built? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians read Romans while often quoting Jesus, what does that show about how they viewed authority and how to form doctrine?

In discussing Romans 2:1–3, the speaker applies Paul’s words about hypocritical judging (especially among Roman magistrates with one standard for poor and another for rich) and connects it to Jesus’ “with what judgment you judge…”; how does this expose ways Christians today can use moral scrutiny to protect power, status, or tribal identity while excusing the same sins in themselves? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can Christians today use moral criticism to protect their own power or group identity, while excusing the same sins in themselves?

The speaker argues God’s “goodness…forbearance…and long suffering” is meant to lead to repentance, not to signal that sin is safe (using examples like Hitler and modern dictators); how does this reshape your understanding of God’s patience, and what kinds of “delayed consequences” tempt Christians to presume on grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does God’s patience change how you think about sin, and what “late consequences” tempt Christians to assume grace means they are safe?

He highlights that Paul says “you store up for yourself wrath,” not that God stores it up, and compares it to Jesus’ “store up treasures” language—two “storehouses” (deeds of mercy and wrong deeds); how does this framing challenge the way you think about daily choices, hidden habits, and the idea that judgment is something we are actively choosing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we are the ones “storing up” wrath or treasure by our choices, how does that change how you think about daily decisions, secret habits, and judgment?

The speaker calls judgment day “the day of revelation” in three senses: God’s wrath revealed, Christ revealed in glory, and the secrets of hearts revealed—then uses the museum example of a crucifix in urine to show cultural scorn; how should Christians respond to public mockery of Christ without denying either God’s patience now or the certainty of accountability later? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should Christians respond when people publicly mock Jesus, while still remembering God is patient now and people will be held accountable later?

The speaker teaches “two phases of salvation” from John 15 (first cleansed/getting on the vine; second remaining/fruit-bearing), then reads Romans 2:6–10 as the “second phase” where eternal life is given to those who “patiently continue in good work”; what parts of this feel most threatening to common evangelical assurances, and what would it change about how you evaluate your own spiritual condition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What feels scary about the idea that salvation includes continuing to bear fruit, and how might that change how you judge your own spiritual health?

He claims many translations “obscure Paul’s message” by rendering *ergon* as “deeds” or “well doing” in Romans 2 while keeping “works” in Ephesians 2, calling this theologically purposeful; how should a serious Christian respond when translation choices appear to protect a doctrine, and what safeguards can a church adopt so that “historic faith” claims are tested rather than merely assumed? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What should Christians do if a Bible translation seems to soften a verse to protect a doctrine, and how can a church make sure its beliefs are tested and not just assumed?