Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that the Reformation/Calvinist “total depravity” view doesn’t fit Scripture’s own descriptions of people like Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth; as a group, how do you weigh those specific passages (Job 1; Luke 1:5–6; Jesus’ reference to “righteous men” in Matthew 13:17) against proof-texts often used to defend total depravity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says the Bible calls people like Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth “righteous,” which seems to clash with “total depravity.” As a group, how do we compare those passages with the verses people use to support total depravity?

In the Job narrative, David emphasizes that God Himself calls Job “blameless and upright” and that Satan attacks Job’s motives rather than denying Job’s righteousness; what does that detail suggest about how God evaluates “righteousness” in fallen humans, and what does it challenge in common evangelical instincts about “filthy rags”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In Job, God calls Job “blameless and upright,” and Satan attacks Job’s motives instead of denying he is righteous. What does this suggest about how God judges righteousness in fallen people, and how does it push back on the “filthy rags” way of thinking?

David insists there is a “huge middle ground” between “we are totally depraved and can do no good” and “we are basically good and can save ourselves”; what are the practical, lived-out consequences of accepting that middle ground for how you talk about grace, obedience, and human responsibility? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says there’s a middle view between “humans can do no good” and “humans can save themselves.” If we accept that middle, how would it change the way we talk and live about grace, obedience, and personal responsibility?

The lesson claims the early Christians held a tripartite view—spirit, soul, flesh—where the soul “lies in the middle” and chooses to align with spirit or flesh; in what ways does that framework change how you interpret inner conflict, temptation, and accountability compared to the more common “body and soul” model? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says early Christians saw people as spirit, soul, and flesh, with the soul choosing which one to follow. How would that change how you understand temptation, inner struggle, and being accountable compared to the usual “body and soul” view?

David quotes Tatian, Irenaeus, and Origen on the soul being “between” spirit and flesh and either rising with the spirit or sympathizing with the flesh; what assumptions about free will, moral effort, and spiritual formation are embedded in those quotations, and how do those assumptions confront modern “assurance” culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The quotes from Tatian, Irenaeus, and Origen picture the soul choosing between spirit and flesh. What do those quotes assume about free choice, effort, and growing spiritually, and how does that challenge today’s “assurance” mindset?

The “Purloined Letter” illustration is used to argue that Bible translations “hide” this doctrine by capitalizing “Spirit” (Holy Spirit) where it may mean human spirit; how does that claim land on you—what would need to be true (or false) for that to be a legitimate critique rather than an overreach? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says some Bible translations may hide this idea by capitalizing “Spirit” when it could mean the human spirit. What would have to be true for that to be a fair criticism, and what would show it’s going too far?

David asks the group to “pretend…you are Origen or Irenaeus” and read Galatians 5 with a lowercase spirit, making “fruit of the spirit” primarily the fruit of the human spirit; what new meaning does that produce in the passage, and what risks or gains come with interpreting it that way? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you read Galatians 5 as if “fruit of the spirit” mostly means the fruit of the human spirit, what new meaning do you see? What are the dangers and benefits of reading it that way?

Using Jesus’ words “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak,” David quotes Tertullian: “Why do we offer our weak part as our defense? Should we not rather look at our strong part?”—what excuses do Christians commonly make today that this rebuke exposes, and what would repentance look like in those specific patterns? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Tertullian says we shouldn’t use our weak flesh as an excuse but look to our stronger part instead. What common excuses do Christians make today that this calls out, and what would real repentance look like in those exact areas?

David argues that non-Christians can show real “love, joy, peace…self-control” because they still have a God-given spirit, and he rejects the “Jehovah’s Witness cop-out” that says it only “appears” to be love/joy; how should this affect the way we evaluate unbelievers morally, evangelize them, and speak about the image of God after the fall? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David says non-Christians can show real love, joy, peace, and self-control because they still have a God-given spirit. How should that change how we judge unbelievers, share the gospel with them, and talk about God’s image in people after the fall?

David applies the human-spirit/conscience idea to everyday examples (lie detectors, soldiers needing training to kill, most people not stealing, expecting children to behave before being born again) and to Romans 2:14–16 and Cornelius; which of these examples most challenges your current theology of sin and grace, and what concrete changes would it require in parenting, discipleship, and church discipline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: David uses examples like lie detectors, soldiers being trained to kill, most people not stealing, and expecting kids to behave before being born again, along with Romans 2 and Cornelius. Which example most challenges your view of sin and grace, and what practical changes would it bring to parenting, discipleship, and church discipline?