Discussion Questions

The speaker wonders why people joined the church in the first 200 years even while watching Christians “being marched” to persecution and martyrdom; what does that suggest about what God was offering them that felt more compelling than safety, comfort, or social acceptance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: People still joined the church even when Christians were being killed. What do you think God offered them that felt worth more than safety, comfort, or fitting in?

The speaker contrasts “methods” with “principles” using Harrington Emerson’s quote and then refuses to discuss evangelism techniques; where do you see modern churches trusting methods more than principles, and what “trouble” have you personally seen when principles get ignored? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see churches today trusting “methods” more than basic Bible principles in evangelism? What problems have you seen when the principles get ignored?

The speaker says these principles “ensure that we are bringing people into this nation as citizens, not as foreigners,” and warns against converts with “one leg in and one leg out”; what would it look like in real life for someone to be brought in as a “foreigner” to God’s kingdom, and how might our evangelism unintentionally produce that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it look like when someone becomes a Christian but still feels like an outsider in God’s kingdom? How might the way we evangelize accidentally lead to that?

Using Jude 1:3, the speaker frames evangelism as passing down “the faith once for all delivered” and argues humans are drawn to “old things” and history; how would early Christians have understood “contending for the faith” as something public and costly, and what parts of the “historic faith” are most likely to be softened or omitted in our setting? JumpstartAnother way to ask: For early Christians, what might it have meant to “contend for the faith” in public when it could cost them a lot? What parts of the historic Christian faith do you think we’re most tempted to soften or leave out today?

The speaker critiques an evangelism mindset that gets “as close as it can to sin,” with “clothes…smell like smoke,” and postpones change until after conversion; what does his claim—“Christianity without repentance and holiness is not a Christian life”—force you to reconsider about how you present the gospel to unbelievers? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea that “Christianity without repentance and holiness isn’t Christian life” change how you think about sharing the gospel? Are there ways you might be downplaying repentance or holiness when talking to unbelievers?

The speaker resolves the “holiness vs. all things to all men” tension by saying Paul’s principle was “humility and temperance” and accommodating consciences without breaking “the law of Christ”; how do you discern the difference between humility that accommodates and compromise that decreases holiness, especially in friendships, entertainment, and speech? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you tell the difference between being humble and flexible for someone’s sake, and compromising in a way that weakens holiness? How does this show up in your friendships, entertainment choices, and speech?

In Acts 17, the speaker notes Paul could have led with denunciation (“You idolatrous and deceived people…”) but instead begins with “I perceive you are very religious” and then presents something greater; what does this reveal about God’s way of confronting false worship, and how does it challenge how you usually speak when you feel morally or theologically right? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Acts 17, Paul starts respectfully and then points to something better instead of attacking right away. What does that show about how God challenges false worship, and how does it push against how you talk when you feel you’re right?

The speaker describes mature Christians who didn’t use “sledgehammers of wisdom” but “smiled, nodded,” and said things that provoked thought as he matured in the historic faith; what would it require (in patience and humility) for you to treat someone’s mistaken views as part of a journey without surrendering truth? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it take for you to be patient with someone who’s wrong and see them as “on a journey,” while still holding to the truth? What would change in your tone and attitude?

Quoting Clement of Alexandria, the speaker calls holiness “the royal road” chosen not from fear or hope but “from free choice,” and says holiness/righteousness are “pruning shears” without which the plant “will be choked out and die”; how does this view confront common evangelical instincts about assurance, grace, and the seriousness of ongoing sin? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If holiness is a chosen “royal road” and ongoing sin can choke out spiritual life, how does that challenge common ideas about grace and assurance? What does it say about how serious we should be about fighting sin after conversion?

The speaker says early Christians showed something “greater to die for,” but modern America needs to see something “greater to live for,” and he ends by calling relationships “the greatest way” to bring people into the kingdom; what would have to change in your weekly habits, spending, and priorities for unbelievers to actually see (not just hear about) that greater purpose embodied in a God-governed community? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people need to see something “greater to live for,” what would need to change in your weekly schedule, spending, and priorities so unbelievers can see that purpose in your community? How could relationships become a real way to bring people into God’s kingdom?