Discussion Questions

Finny argues that Romans 9–11 is driven by the question “since most of Israel has rejected its Messiah, how do we make sense of God’s promises in the Old Testament?”—how does that framing change what you think the passage is *about*, and what does it suggest about God’s faithfulness to His covenant people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans 9–11 is mainly asking, “Most Israelites rejected the Messiah—so did God break His Old Testament promises?”, how does that change what you think the passage is about? What does it say about God keeping His promises to His covenant people?

The lesson claims the “climactic application of the olive tree is about conditional salvation” and “not about unconditional salvation and damnation”—what parts of the olive tree imagery (being “cut off,” being “grafted in,” continuing in kindness) do you think early Christians would have assumed about perseverance, warning, and assurance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the olive tree picture, what do “cut off,” “grafted in,” and “continue in kindness” suggest about staying faithful, being warned, and having assurance? What do you think the first Christians would have assumed those words meant?

The teacher says Calvinists, “in their zeal to give God 100% credit… inadvertently give God 100% blame as well”; what do you find compelling or unconvincing about that moral logic, and what does it imply about God’s character if He is “omnicausal” and “unconditional”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Do you agree that if God gets 100% credit for everything, He also gets 100% blame for everything? What would that mean about God’s character if everything happens because He causes it and His choices are unconditional?

Finny uses the “million-dollar check” and the “gift still has to be received” analogies to challenge the idea that receiving grace equals boasting—where have you personally absorbed the fear that obedience, choice, or saying “yes” to God is “man-based religion,” and how does that fear shape your spiritual life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you picked up the idea that obeying God or choosing to say “yes” is “man-based religion” or bragging? How has that fear shaped your faith and daily life?

Several Calvinist quotes are presented (“No wind ever arises… except by God’s express command,” “not merely permit evil,” “author of them,” Piper on 9/11 being “caused” by God)—how do these claims affect your ability to pray, trust, and worship, and what emotional resistance or attraction do you notice in yourself toward a “no-risk view” of providence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do the quotes saying God directly causes every event (even evil and tragedies like 9/11) affect your prayer, trust, and worship? Do you feel drawn to or pushed away by a “no-risk” view of God’s control, and why?

Finny appeals to James 1 (“Let no one say… I am tempted by God… each one is drawn away by his own desires”)—how would you use James’s logic to respond to the claim that God ordains sinful acts, and what does James 1 reveal about the kind of God Scripture wants you to picture when you face temptation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Using James 1, how would you answer the claim that God plans or orders sinful acts? What picture of God does James 1 want you to have when you are being tempted?

In the compatibilism discussion (Warfield), freedom is defined as acting voluntarily according to desires, even if those desires and circumstances are divinely determined; how does the “microchip/joystick” thought experiment expose what might be at stake in redefining “freedom,” and where do you think modern Christians accept similar redefinitions without noticing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “freedom” means doing what you want, even if God fully decides your wants and situation, what does the “microchip/joystick” example show could be lost? Where do Christians today accept watered-down ideas of freedom without realizing it?

Finny defines responsibility as “ability to respond” and calls it a “total sheer contradiction” to say humans are unable to respond to God yet are held responsible—how do you think early Christian preaching and discipleship assumed real human response (repentance, obedience, perseverance), and what breaks down pastorally if responsibility is detached from genuine ability? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people can’t truly respond to God, is it fair to say they are still responsible? How did early Christian preaching assume real human response (repentance, obedience, perseverance), and what goes wrong in pastoring if responsibility is separated from real ability?

The lesson claims Calvinism “minimizes sin and minimizes grace,” because if God ordained the fall and depravity, then salvation becomes “God… fixing the problem he caused,” making “thank you” at the cross unintelligible—what does your gratitude at the cross currently rest on, and how would your understanding of sin’s heinousness change if you truly “could have chosen the good” but chose evil? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is your gratitude at the cross based on right now? How would your view of how awful sin is change if you really could have chosen the good but chose evil instead?

Finny insists theology must move “from Jesus to God,” not from a prior definition of God to Jesus, citing Jesus’s limited miracles in Nazareth due to lack of faith (Mark 6:5) and the kenosis (Philippians 2) as “divine self-limitation”; where do the Gospels portray God making Himself “partially dependent” on human covenant partners, and what concrete habits (prayer, repentance, faith, evangelism) would change if you treated that as the normal pattern of God’s sovereignty? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do the Gospels show God choosing to work with, and in some ways depend on, human partners (like faith affecting what happens)? If that’s normal for God’s rule, what would change in your habits like prayer, repentance, faith, and evangelism?