Discussion Questions

Bercot compares many Christians’ doctrinal beliefs to a “default judgment” in court, where one side wins because the other side never appears. What does this illustration suggest about the way God wants His people to seek truth, and where might our own beliefs have been formed without ever giving opposing biblical arguments a fair hearing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says many Christian beliefs are like a court case where one side wins because the other side never shows up. What does this teach us about how God wants us to seek truth? Where might our own beliefs have been formed without fairly hearing other Bible arguments?

Peter Hawkins and Mary Rodriguez both sincerely believe their doctrines are “what the Bible teaches,” even though they arrive at different conclusions through different church backgrounds. How should this challenge our confidence in our own denominational or evangelical assumptions, especially when we are certain that our tradition is simply “the plain meaning of Scripture”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Peter Hawkins and Mary Rodriguez both believe their views are what the Bible teaches, but they reach different answers because of their church backgrounds. How should this make us question our own church traditions, especially when we think our view is just the plain meaning of Scripture?

Bercot says that parents and churches should teach what they believe is true, yet he also says preconceived ideas are a barrier to finding truth. How can Christian instruction be faithful and necessary while still leaving room for humility, correction, and genuine listening to Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says parents and churches should teach what they believe is true, but he also says fixed ideas can block us from truth. How can we teach faithfully while still staying humble, open to correction, and ready to listen to Scripture?

The chapter argues that many Christians see the words of the Bible but actually hear the words of their teachers. What habits, reactions, or emotional defenses might reveal that we are listening more to inherited interpretations than to the biblical text itself? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says many Christians see the Bible’s words but hear their teachers’ words. What habits, feelings, or reactions might show that we are trusting old interpretations more than the Bible itself?

Bercot uses Romans 5:12 to describe how he once heard the verse say more than its actual words said about inheriting Adam’s guilt. What are some doctrines or favorite proof texts where modern Christians may be adding a theological explanation to the text and then treating that explanation as the text itself? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says he once read Romans 5:12 as teaching more than the verse actually said about inheriting Adam’s guilt. What are some doctrines or favorite Bible verses where Christians may add an explanation, then treat that explanation as if it were the verse itself?

The two “rules of truth” in the chapter are that what we believe does not change what is true, and that preconceived beliefs are a barrier to finding truth. What do these rules reveal about God’s character as the God of truth, and why might resisting them be a spiritual problem rather than merely an intellectual one? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter gives two rules of truth: what we believe does not change what is true, and our fixed beliefs can block us from truth. What do these rules show about God as the God of truth? Why might rejecting them be a spiritual problem, not just a thinking problem?

Bercot says a title lawyer must examine an abstract with a “blank mental slate” rather than trying to build a case for the result the client wants. How does this analogy confront the way Christians often study Scripture in order to defend grace, obedience, faith, assurance, freedom, or salvation as they already understand them? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says a title lawyer must study the records with an open mind, not just try to prove what the client wants. How does this challenge the way Christians sometimes study the Bible to defend what they already believe about grace, obedience, faith, assurance, freedom, or salvation?

The chapter says we know we are reading Scripture with a blank slate when we have “no theological system to defend” and “no prior conclusions to which Scripture must be molded.” What would it cost us personally, relationally, or church-wise to approach Scripture in that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says we read Scripture with an open mind when we have no belief system to defend and no answer we must force the Bible to support. What might this cost us personally, in our relationships, or in our church?

Bercot suggests asking, “If I were raised in a pagan society that had never read the Bible before, what would this verse seem to be saying to me?” How might early Christians, many of whom came from pagan backgrounds and lacked later theological systems, have heard teachings on salvation, repentance, obedience, and discipleship differently than many modern Christians do? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot suggests asking, “If I grew up in a pagan society and had never read the Bible, what would this verse seem to say?” How might early Christians, who often came from pagan backgrounds and did not have later theology systems, have understood salvation, repentance, obedience, and discipleship differently than many Christians today?

If preconceived beliefs are normal but dangerous, what concrete practices could a serious Christian adopt when studying Scripture—alone or with a church—to become more honest, teachable, and willing to obey whatever God actually says? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If fixed beliefs are normal but dangerous, what practical habits can a serious Christian use when studying the Bible alone or with a church to become more honest, teachable, and ready to obey whatever God says?