Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that God created humans primarily “as an expression of God’s love” so He could “pour out His love” and enjoy relationship—how does that picture of God challenge the common idea that the point of life is mainly to “praise God,” and what does it suggest about God’s motives and emotional life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God made people mainly to love us and have a relationship with us, how does that challenge the idea that life is mostly about praising God? What does it show about what God wants and how He feels?

In the train-and-escalator story with Pierre, Bercot says the joy comes from the child’s happiness, but that bratty rebellion would end the outings; what does this analogy imply about why God cares so much about our conduct, and where do you feel resistance to the idea that God “has no desire to spend eternity with people who will only bring Him heartache”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the story, the dad’s joy depends on the child’s attitude—so what does that say about why God cares about how we live? Where do you struggle with the idea that God doesn’t want eternity with people who will only hurt Him?

Bercot claims God is not “involuntarily good” but chooses good freely (quoting Clement of Alexandria), and that God “cannot do evil” because of His character, not lack of capacity—how does that shape your understanding of God’s goodness, and what implications does it have for what “being made in God’s image” should look like in our choices? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God chooses to do good freely, and doesn’t do evil because of His character, how does that change how you see God’s goodness? What does it mean for how we should choose and live as people made in God’s image?

He uses the robot-dog vs. real-dog illustration to argue God doesn’t want “automatons,” and that free will is essential to real love—how do you see early Christians (as Bercot presents them) holding together God’s desire for obedient children with genuine freedom, and what would that do to modern assumptions that obedience cancels “authentic relationship”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God wants real love, not robots, how can freedom and obedience both be true at the same time? How does that challenge the idea that obedience makes a relationship fake?

Bercot calls the first sin Satan’s lie about God’s character (that God is withholding good and lying), and he says Eve believed it while Adam knowingly chose his wife over God—where do you see similar “lies about God” functioning today inside Christian thinking, and what are practical ways you can detect when you’re trusting a story about God rather than God Himself? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “wrong stories” about God do you see Christians believing today, like the lie that God is holding back good? How can you tell when you’re trusting a story about God instead of trusting God Himself?

He argues the Eden test was “very easy” but sufficient to reveal love and loyalty—what does that suggest about the kinds of “tests” God may allow in our lives now, and how might we be overlooking simple obedience as the real measure of love? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Eden test was simple but still showed love and loyalty, what kinds of tests might God allow in our lives now? Are we missing that simple obedience may be the real proof of love?

Bercot strongly rejects both the Reformers’ “plan B” (predestination to damnation for most) and the modern evangelical “plan B” (assured salvation without obedience), even quoting Luther’s harsh defense; which parts of his critique feel most unsettling, and how do they force you to rethink what a merciful and just God must be like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot rejects both predestination to damnation and “saved no matter how you live”—what part of his argument bothers you most? How does it push you to rethink what a merciful and just God would be like?

He repeatedly insists we are still under “plan A,” where faith and obedience “work hand in glove,” citing Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses’ “choose life”; if this is true, what should change in how we talk about assurance, salvation, and discipleship in our churches, especially where “faith alone” language has trained people to distrust obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If faith and obedience are meant to go together, what should change in how churches talk about assurance, salvation, and discipleship? How do we talk about obedience well if people have been taught to distrust it because of “faith alone” language?

Using John the Baptist’s “bear fruits worthy of repentance” and Jesus’ warnings about “lawlessness” and the narrow gate, Bercot argues people have real ability to respond (not perfectly, but truly)—how does this confront the idea that God commands what humans cannot do, and what would it mean for how we preach repentance without turning it into either despair or self-salvation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If people can truly respond to God’s commands (even if not perfectly), how does that challenge the idea that God asks the impossible? How can we preach repentance in a way that avoids both hopelessness and “I can save myself” thinking?

Bercot says the Bible ends where it began: judged “according to their works,” and “to him who overcomes” comes the tree of life; if eternal destiny turns on whether we “have done good” or “done evil,” what specific habits, relationships, or hidden compromises in your life begin to look like “practicing lawlessness,” and what concrete steps would repentance look like this week if love is proven by obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God will judge people by what they have done, what habits, relationships, or secret choices in your life might count as “practicing lawlessness”? What would real repentance look like for you this week if love is shown by obedience?