Discussion Questions

Terry Clifton says the “SCAR” rule moves from “most absolute to most fuzzy” (Scripture → Christocentric → Antiquity → Real); where do you personally feel most resistance to that ordering, and what would have to change in you for Scripture to function as “bedrock” rather than as one authority among several? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Clifton says the “SCAR” rule goes from most clear to most unclear (Scripture → Christ-centered → ancient church → real life). Where do you resist that order most, and what would need to change in you for Scripture to feel like the solid foundation instead of just one voice among others?

Clifton insists, “The Bible is received as the sole and fallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice,” and then immediately illustrates disagreeing with Justin Martyr’s allegorizing of David’s concubines; what does this approach require from us when a beloved early Christian teacher—or a respected modern one—handles a hard text in a way that feels morally safer? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Bible is the main authority, what should we do when a favorite early church leader—or a trusted modern teacher—explains a hard passage in a way that feels morally safer than what the text seems to say?

He argues that early Christians “constantly” reasoned from Scripture rather than councils, and that later requiring non-biblical terms like *homoousios* created real tension; how should a serious Christian community decide when using extra-biblical language is a necessary guardrail versus an unhealthy move away from Scripture’s authority? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How should a church decide when using non-biblical words (like homoousios) is a helpful protection for truth, and when it starts replacing Scripture’s authority?

Clifton pushes back on the apologetic line “the church gave you the Bible,” saying instead that the *regula fidei* (the deposit of faith) “judges both the scripture and the church”; what would it look like—practically—for a church today to let the apostolic “deposit” correct both individual Bible interpretation and institutional church tradition? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the apostolic “deposit of faith” is meant to correct both our Bible readings and church traditions, what would that look like in a real church today when there’s a disagreement?

Using Marcion and Montanism, Clifton frames two opposite threats: rejecting the Old Testament versus elevating “new revelation” to a coercive level (“the Holy Spirit gave us this standard, and you’re going to do it”); where do you see modern Christianity drifting toward Marcion-like instincts or Montanist-like instincts, and how would a “tethered” Spirit-led reading of Scripture actually function in real decisions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see Christians today acting more like Marcion (pushing aside the Old Testament) or like Montanists (treating “new revelations” as something everyone must follow)? What would a Spirit-led but Scripture-tethered approach look like when making real decisions?

Clifton’s M16 “two sights” illustration suggests Scripture must be Spirit-inspired and alive, yet anchored so you’re not “way off”; what are the “one-sight” habits you’ve seen (or practiced)—either Spirit-without-text or text-without-Spirit—and what would change in your daily life if you pursued both without letting either become a trump card? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “one-sight” habits have you seen in yourself or others—either following the Spirit without the text, or the text without the Spirit? What would change in your daily life if you tried to hold both together without using either one to override the other?

He points to manuscript evidence and the massive number of early-church Scripture quotations (e.g., Clement’s 1,107 gospel quotes) to stir “awe” and confidence; if early Christians were saturated with Scripture like that, what does that imply about their assumptions for discipleship, memory, public reading, and argument—and what does it expose about how thin modern biblical literacy can be while still claiming strong confidence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians knew Scripture so well they quoted it constantly, what does that say about how they expected Christians to learn, memorize, hear it read, and argue from it? What does that reveal about how shallow modern Bible knowledge can be even when people say they’re confident in the Bible?

Clifton says the early church’s writings will sound like “a summary of the Sermon on the Mount,” emphasizing a faith that looked like “simple followers of Jesus” rather than “salvation by knowing certain theological points”; which modern evangelical instincts about assurance, freedom, and “not being legalistic” feel threatened by that description, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the early church sounds like a lived-out Sermon on the Mount, focused on being simple followers of Jesus more than knowing the right points, which modern evangelical ideas about being sure you’re saved, being free, and “not being legalistic” feel challenged by that—and why?

The “soundboard solo” and binoculars images lead to his claim: “You don’t interpret Paul through Jesus; you interpret Paul through Jesus,” and he highlights 1 Corinthians 7 (“not I, but the Lord… I, not the Lord”); what doctrines or practices in your tradition would shift most if Jesus’ teaching became the primary interpretive lens for Paul and the rest of Scripture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If we read Paul and the rest of the Bible mainly through Jesus’ teaching, what beliefs or church practices in your tradition would change the most?

Clifton asks, “What if Jesus really meant every word he said?” and connects that to concrete teachings (enemy love, no lawsuits, radical money, permanent marriage, seeking the kingdom) and even his own Army experience; which specific teaching of Jesus do you most naturally treat as an ideal rather than an expectation, and what would obedience cost you in relationships, finances, career, or security if you stopped making that exception? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which teaching of Jesus do you tend to treat as a nice ideal instead of something you must actually do? If you took it seriously, what would obedience cost you in your relationships, money, job, or sense of safety?