Discussion Questions

The chapter claims that the person intimate with God “treats all persons alike,” including “legally declared enemies”; what picture of God’s own posture toward humanity is being held up as the model, and where do you find that hard to believe or hard to imitate in practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says someone close to God treats everyone the same, even enemies. What does that say about how God treats people, and what part is hard for you to believe or live out?

The speaker says giving liberally is “righteousness,” but discerning “to whom he should primarily give…when…how much” is “the very highest righteousness”; how would early Christians (with house churches, widows, traveling teachers, and persecution) have practiced this kind of discriminating generosity without it becoming favoritism or an excuse to withhold? JumpstartAnother way to ask: It says giving a lot is “righteousness,” but wisely choosing who to give to, when, and how much is the “highest righteousness.” How could early Christians do that without playing favorites or using it as an excuse not to give?

He insists the intimate Christian will “give to the one who persecutes and hates Christians” if that person is in need, and won’t care if others assume it’s done out of fear; what motives would you suspect in yourself if you helped an enemy, and what would it look like to help with the “motive…only to give help”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: It says you should help even someone who hates or hurts Christians, just because they need it. If you helped an enemy, what mixed motives might you notice in yourself, and what would it look like to help with only the desire to help?

The chapter says God “treats no one as an enemy,” and that the disobedient are the ones who “treat God as an enemy” by being hostile to his covenant; how does that framing reshape the way you think about sin, judgment, and “being at odds with God” compared with common evangelical ways of speaking? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says God treats no one as an enemy, but people treat God as an enemy when they reject his covenant. How does that change how you think about sin and judgment compared to how evangelicals usually talk about them?

The speaker critiques self-restraint done from lack of opportunity, fear of people, desire for bigger pleasures, fear of God, or hope of reward—calling that only a beginning; what parts of your obedience are most dependent on fear/reward/social pressure, and what would need to change for endurance to come “out of love” instead? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The speaker says self-control based on fear, reward, or social pressure is only the start. Where is your obedience still driven by fear/reward/people, and what would need to change for you to keep obeying out of love?

He argues that real moderation isn’t merely mastering bad desires, but also “master[ing] good attributes” and producing godly qualities as the “fruit” of intimate knowledge; what “good attributes” does your church culture tend to neglect because it focuses mainly on avoiding scandalous sins? JumpstartAnother way to ask: He says real moderation is not just stopping bad desires but also controlling “good attributes” and growing godly fruit. What good traits does your church often overlook because it focuses mostly on avoiding big, obvious sins?

The chapter’s discussion of marriage is unsettling: it says the married man who endures household temptations “surpasses other men,” yet the one without family is “free of temptation to a large degree”; how does this challenge modern Christian assumptions about singleness, marriage, spiritual maturity, and what “proves” a person? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says a married man who faces home temptations can surpass others, but a single person is freer from many temptations. How does that challenge what we assume about singleness, marriage, and what shows real spiritual maturity?

Jesus’ statement “You cannot serve God and Mammon” is interpreted here as mammon meaning “the pleasure money can buy,” and the intimate Christian becomes “suspicious” even of subtle pleasure-stimulators (words, movements, thoughts); what everyday entertainments, purchases, or habits would this teaching put under suspicion for you, and how do you resist redefining them as harmless? JumpstartAnother way to ask: This reading says “Mammon” is the pleasure money can buy, and warns even small pleasure-triggers. What entertainments, purchases, or habits in your life might this call into question, and how do you keep from excusing them as harmless?

In the “Prayer life” section, the wise souls say they have “disobey[ed] none of your commandments,” therefore they “claim your promises,” and the text says the pure-from-sin person will “certainly obtain what he wishes” because he won’t ask for harmful things; how does this connect obedience, purity, and answered prayer in a way that clashes with “unconditional assurance” instincts, and what questions does it raise about your own prayer expectations? JumpstartAnother way to ask: It says obedient, pure people can “claim” God’s promises and will get what they ask because they won’t ask for harmful things. How does that fit or clash with your view of assurance and prayer, and what does it make you wonder about your own prayer life?

The chapter redefines fasting and Lord’s Day keeping: fasting is ultimately a life “from envy and sensuousness,” and keeping the Lord’s Day is abandoning an evil nature and taking on the nature of the intimate-with-God person; if your weekly rhythm truly aimed at those definitions (not just food rules or church attendance), what would need to change in your schedule, media intake, relationships, and inner battles this week? JumpstartAnother way to ask: It defines fasting as living free from envy and sensual living, and keeping the Lord’s Day as turning from evil and becoming more like someone close to God. If that was your goal this week, what would need to change in your schedule, media, relationships, and private struggles?