Discussion Questions

Tertullian tells the Roman rulers that “truth…knows that she is but a sojourner on the earth” and only asks “not to be condemned unknown”; what does that reveal about God’s relationship to earthly power, and how should Christians respond when legal systems don’t want “the real truth” in public? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says truth is only passing through this world and just wants a fair hearing. What does that say about God’s rule compared to earthly governments, and how should Christians respond when laws don’t want the truth said in public?

Tertullian argues that people hate Christianity mainly out of ignorance, and that once some “come to know it…they at once lay down their enmity”; how does that claim challenge the way modern Christians interpret hostility toward the faith (as persecution, as personal offense, or as a discipleship opportunity)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says people mostly hate Christianity because they don’t understand it, and that some stop hating it once they learn. How should that change the way Christians today see hostility—as persecution, a personal insult, or a chance to witness?

He notes the oddity that Christians “glory” when pointed out, “offer no defense” when accused, “make voluntary confession” when interrogated, and “render thanks” when condemned; what view of God and eternity must be operating underneath that behavior, and what would have to change in us to act similarly under pressure? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Christians in his day didn’t fight the charges and even thanked God when punished. What must they believe about God and eternity to act like that, and what would need to change in us to respond the same way under pressure?

Tertullian highlights a moral inversion in Roman society (divorce, drunkenness, adultery) while Christians are accused of infant-killing and incest; how does his approach force us to examine what modern societies excuse as “normal” while still needing a villain to accuse? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian points out that Romans excused things like divorce and adultery but accused Christians of terrible crimes. How does that make us ask what our society treats as “normal,” and who it chooses to blame as the bad guy?

When Tertullian says Christians are forbidden from murder of every kind and “may not even destroy the fetus while it is still in the womb,” calling abortion “a speedier form of murder,” what do his assumptions reveal about early Christian obedience and moral boundaries, and where do modern Christians rationalize exceptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says Christians can’t murder in any form, including ending a pregnancy, calling abortion a faster kind of murder. What does this show about early Christian moral limits, and where do Christians today try to make exceptions?

Tertullian defends Christian discipline by saying God gave written revelation so that people “finding believe and believing obey”; how does that sequence (seek → find → believe → obey) confront modern evangelical instincts to separate faith from obedience or to treat obedience as optional? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says God gave Scripture so people would seek, find, believe, and then obey. How does that challenge the idea that faith can be separated from obedience or that obeying is optional?

He appeals to fulfilled prophecy as proof that Scripture is divine, listing calamities and social decline as foretold; what does this suggest about God’s sovereignty over history and judgment, and how should Christians avoid either panic or complacency when they see cultures unravel? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says fulfilled prophecy proves Scripture is from God and that disasters and social breakdown were predicted. What does that say about God’s control over history and judgment, and how can Christians avoid either panic or laziness when culture falls apart?

In describing Christ, Tertullian uses the “ray from the Sun” analogy—“second in manner of existence…not in nature”—and says Pilate’s report would make him “in fact, a Christian in his own convictions”; what should we do with apologetic arguments that blend theology, analogy, and contested historical claims, and how should truthfulness shape our persuasion? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian uses a “ray from the Sun” picture for Christ and claims Pilate’s report would almost make him a Christian. How should we handle arguments that mix theology, word pictures, and debated history, and how should honesty guide how we try to persuade people?

Tertullian insists that religious liberty is fitting because even humans don’t want “unwilling homage,” and he says Christians offer emperors not sacrifice but constant prayer; what does that reveal about God’s desires in worship, and how does it challenge modern Christian attempts to gain political power to enforce public “religion”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says worship must be freely given, and Christians don’t offer emperors sacrifices but pray for them. What does that show about what God wants in worship, and how does it challenge Christians who want political power to force public “religion”?

His description of church life includes “rebukes and sacred censures,” excommunication for grievous sin, voluntary giving for the poor and imprisoned, refusing spectacles, and an agape feast marked by prayer, modesty, and shared hymns; which of these early-Christian practices would most disrupt a typical modern church, and what heart motives (fear, comfort, reputation, individualism) keep us from embracing them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian describes church life with public correction, kicking out unrepentant members, generous giving, avoiding entertainment shows, and shared meals with prayer and modest behavior. Which of these would most shock a modern church, and what fears or comforts keep us from doing them?