Discussion Questions

Finny warns against being “reactionary” and driving into the opposite ditch when responding to Calvinism; where have you seen this “ditch-switching” happen in Mennonite or evangelical contexts, and what doctrines or practices tend to get damaged when people swing to the opposite extreme? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people react to Calvinism by swinging to the opposite extreme in Mennonite or evangelical settings? When that happens, what beliefs or practices usually get harmed?

He suggests substituting “favor” for “grace” as a quick interpretive check; when you try that substitution in your own Bible reading, what passages become clearer, and which ones become uncomfortable because they no longer support a “magical warm fuzzies” view of grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you replace the word “grace” with “favor” when you read the Bible, what verses make more sense? Which verses feel uncomfortable because grace no longer sounds like “warm feelings” or something magical?

Finny contrasts “irresistible grace” (Reformation/Calvin; codified at Dort 1619) with “prevenient/enabling grace”; what exactly is being claimed about God’s initiative in prevenient grace, and how does that reshape the way you think about conversion, repentance, and obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does “prevenient/enabling grace” say God does first to help someone respond to him? How does that change how you think about conversion, repentance, and obedience?

In Titus 2:11–14, the grace that brings salvation “has appeared to all men” and “teaches us” to deny ungodliness and live righteously; how does this description of grace confront common modern assumptions that grace mainly means pardon without training, or salvation without a transformed life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Titus 2 says grace brings salvation and also teaches us to say no to sin and live right—how does that challenge the idea that grace is only pardon without change? What does it say about salvation without a transformed life?

Finny calls Titus 2’s “to all men” a “slap on Calvinism” because irresistible grace is given only to a limited group; if saving grace truly “appears to all,” what does that imply about God’s character and intentions toward every person—including those who never seem interested in Christ? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If saving grace really “appears to all,” what does that show about God’s heart toward every person? How should we think about people who never seem interested in Christ?

He highlights Acts 16:14 (“The Lord opened her heart to pay attention”) as a small detail that reveals prevenient grace before Lydia becomes a Christian; how does that change the way you interpret human “seeking,” attention to preaching, and the difference between God drawing someone and God overriding someone? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Acts 16:14 says God opened Lydia’s heart before she believed—how does that shape the way you view people “seeking” God or listening to preaching? What’s the difference between God drawing someone and God forcing someone?

Finny says people can hold both total depravity and prevenient grace (even Arminius did), because humans are unable until grace enables them; what do you gain—and what do you lose—by describing unbelievers as “totally dead” while also saying God gives enabling grace broadly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people are “totally dead” in sin but God gives enabling grace to many, what is gained by using that “totally dead” language? What is lost or confused by saying both at the same time?

The “FACTS” alternative acronym includes “security in Christ,” defined as being safe “so long as you remain in Christ,” with the warning that leaving Christ leads to damnation; how does that claim collide with the way assurance is often taught today, and what habits or choices would have to change if you took that warning seriously? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you are secure only “as long as you remain in Christ,” how does that clash with how assurance is often taught today? What daily habits or choices would need to change if you took the warning about leaving Christ seriously?

In the humility discussion, Finny critiques the Calvinist accusation that non-Calvinists are proud and calls Calvinist humility “bizarre” because it can feel like being “one of the lucky ones”; how do the competing frameworks (irresistible grace vs prevenient grace) change what it would even mean to boast, to be grateful, or to feel “chosen”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do irresistible grace and prevenient grace change what it means to brag, to be thankful, or to feel “chosen”? In each view, what would humility look like?

Finny redefines predestination as God deciding the destinations (life for the elect, destruction for the reprobate) without deciding which individuals will choose which “plane,” then argues from Romans 8 that foreknowledge comes before predestination; how does his pen-drop illustration (“foreknowledge does not imply causation”) affect the way you read Romans 8’s “golden chain,” and what would early Christians like Origen assume about God’s love, foreknowledge, and human faith in that passage? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the idea “knowing ahead of time doesn’t cause it” change how you read Romans 8’s chain (foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified)? What would early Christians like Origen likely think this passage says about God’s love, foreknowledge, and human faith?