Discussion Questions

Lorraine Boettner claims predestination “was not made a matter of special study until near the end of the 4th century,” and that earlier fathers emphasized repentance, almsgiving, prayer, and baptism “as the basis of salvation”; what does that claim imply about God’s willingness to let the church be wrong for centuries, and how does that sit with your assumptions about God guiding His people? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If predestination wasn’t closely studied until the late 300s and earlier leaders focused on repentance and baptism, does that mean God let the church be wrong for centuries? How does that fit with your belief about how God guides His people?

Boettner frames Augustine as the one who “revived true religion” between “Paul and Luther”; what view of church history (and of God’s faithfulness to preserve truth) is required for that storyline to be persuasive, and what alternative storyline does Finny suggest by contrasting Augustine with earlier sources? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Augustine “revived true religion” between Paul and Luther, what does that assume about church history and God keeping truth alive? What different story does Finny point to when he compares Augustine with earlier Christian writings?

Finny highlights that Augustine spent 10 years as a Manichean, didn’t know Greek, shifted theology around 412 AD, taught “original guilt” (including infants needing baptism to avoid hell), and introduced just war theory; which of those details most challenges your instinct to treat Augustine as “early church,” and why does the timing (post–Nicaea) matter in this lesson? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which fact about Augustine most makes it hard for you to treat him as a solid “early church” guide, and why? Why does it matter that these changes happened after Nicaea?

Clement of Rome says goodness “under necessity is not really good,” and that God punishes sinners because they “were able to conquer but neglected”; what does that reveal about God’s justice and what He seems to assume about human ability, and how would early Christians likely have preached repentance and obedience if they believed Clement’s logic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Clement says a forced good deed isn’t really good, and God punishes people because they could have obeyed but didn’t, what does that say about God’s justice and human ability? If early Christians agreed, how would that shape the way they preached repentance and obedience?

Origen warns against views that “destroy free will” by teaching “ruined natures incapable of salvation” and others “saved…that they cannot be lost,” and he identifies this with the Gnostics; what do you do with the discomfort of a major early Christian writer describing something that sounds like Calvinism as a live heresy in his day? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen warns that some teachings “destroy free will” by saying people can’t be saved or can’t fall away, and he links that to Gnostics. How do you handle an early Christian writer treating something like Calvinism as a serious error in his time?

Finny argues proof texting shows “dishonesty or laziness,” and illustrates it with the LA Times “Irresistible” movie ad that contradicts the reviewer’s intent; where have you seen Christian teaching (including your own habits) function like that ad—borrowing biblical “credibility” while quietly reversing the author’s point? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says proof texting can twist a text to say the opposite of what it means, like that movie ad example. Where have you seen Bible teaching—including your own—use Bible words to gain trust while missing or reversing the author’s point?

Finny’s language examples (dust, original, left, clip) and his bilingual/ESL experiences are used to argue that native speakers have “vast advantages” and that “unanimity of the native speakers” is a “powerful advantage”; how should that reshape the weight you give to later theological systems versus the earliest Greek-speaking Christian interpreters? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny argues that native Greek speakers had a big advantage in understanding the New Testament. Should that make you trust later theology systems less than the earliest Greek-speaking Christian teachers, and why?

In Finny’s worldview diagram, he says people often move from a muddled popular worldview, to “amateurish” church life, to rigorous Calvinism, then swing to a “graceless, man-centered” reaction—and he says Satan likes the swing because both sides produce prayerlessness; where do you see yourself or your church in that pattern, and what concrete practices would actually cultivate the “best worldview” he says is rare? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says people often swing from shallow church life to strict Calvinism, then to a man-centered backlash, and both swings lead to less prayer. Where do you see yourself or your church in that cycle, and what specific habits would help build the “best worldview” he says is rare?

Finny distinguishes “Lazarus dead” (corpse) from “prodigal son dead” (“you’re dead to me” relationally) to challenge the Calvinist use of “dead in sins” from Ephesians 2; which sense of “dead” best fits his supporting arguments (Satan blinding unbelievers; Jesus amazed at lack of faith; judicial hardening), and what uncomfortable implications does that have for how responsible unbelievers really are? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says “dead” can mean a corpse (like Lazarus) or cut off in relationship (like the prodigal son), and he applies that to Ephesians 2. Which meaning fits his other points best, and what does that suggest about how responsible unbelievers really are?

Finny presses that John 5:40 and John’s purpose statement reverse the Calvinist order (“come/believe → life,” not “life/regeneration → believe”), and he claims unconditional election severs election from salvation-by-faith; how would you articulate (without proof texting) the actual sequence Scripture teaches, and what changes in your assurance, evangelism, and daily obedience if faith/faithfulness is truly tied to salvation in the way he describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Finny says John presents the order as “believe/come, then get life,” not “get life first, then believe,” and that unconditional election disconnects salvation from faith. Without picking random proof verses, how would you explain the Bible’s order, and how would it change your assurance, evangelism, and daily obedience if faithfulness is truly tied to salvation?