Discussion Questions

David Bercot argues that Jesus’ “speck and beam” teaching in Matthew 7:3–5 is primarily a command to stop focusing on a brother’s sins and instead focus on your own—how does that reading confront the way you’ve heard this passage used to justify “correcting” others, and what would it change in your daily conversations about other Christians? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Jesus’ “speck and beam” teaching is mainly about stopping our focus on other Christians’ sins and looking at our own. How does that challenge the way you’ve heard this passage used to defend “correcting” people, and how would it change your everyday talks about other Christians?

Bercot says the “beam” will “always” be in your eye because “you’re never going to be free from sin”; how does that claim shape the posture a Christian should have when they do need to address someone else’s serious sin (as in Matthew 18), and what dangers arise if a church treats itself as made up of people who “have removed the beam”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “beam” is always in our own eye because we still sin, what attitude should we have when we must confront serious sin (like in Matthew 18)? What can go wrong if a church acts like its members have already “removed the beam”?

Chrysostom is quoted: “Do you wish to judge? Judge your own sins. No one will accuse you if you condemn yourself”; what might “condemning yourself” look like in practice without sliding into shame, self-hatred, or denial of grace, and why do you think early Christians spoke this way so bluntly? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chrysostom says to judge your own sins and “condemn yourself.” What could that look like in real life without turning into shame, self-hate, or forgetting God’s grace, and why do you think early Christians spoke so strongly?

On “do not give what is holy to dogs… pearls before swine” (Matt 7:6), the early Christians applied it not only to evangelism but also to communion and baptism—what assumptions about holiness, repentance, and the church’s boundaries are embedded in that early Christian practice, and where does it clash with how your tradition handles the Lord’s Supper and baptism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians applied “do not give what is holy to dogs… pearls before swine” to communion and baptism too. What does that show about how they saw holiness, repentance, and who counts as “inside” the church, and where does that conflict with how your church handles the Lord’s Supper and baptism?

Bercot insists that baptism should not be given to someone “who is not truly repented,” while also saying “no particular works” are required before baptism; how would a group discern “strong indication of conversion” without creating a works-test, and what kinds of evidence would you consider legitimate versus illegitimate? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says only truly repentant people should be baptized, but also says no specific works are required first. How could a church look for real signs of conversion without turning it into a “prove yourself” test, and what signs would you accept or reject?

He critiques evangelicals who view praying the Lord’s Prayer or living by the Golden Rule as “unspiritual” or “something Catholics worry about”; what is it in evangelical culture or theology that could produce that suspicion, and how does Jesus’ statement “this is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12) challenge that mindset? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says some evangelicals treat praying the Lord’s Prayer or living the Golden Rule as “unspiritual.” What in evangelical culture or beliefs might cause that, and how does Jesus saying “this is the law and the prophets” (Matt 7:12) challenge it?

Bercot highlights that early Christians saw both negative (“don’t do…”) and positive (“do…”) applications of the Golden Rule, including proactive acts like visiting prisoners and feeding the hungry; where is your life currently shaped more by “not doing harm” than by “actively doing good,” and what concrete proactive good would you do if you took Jesus’ wording literally this week? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Early Christians used the Golden Rule not only as “don’t harm others” but also as “actively do good,” like feeding the hungry and visiting prisoners. Where are you more focused on not doing wrong than on doing good, and what is one specific good thing you could do this week if you took Jesus’ words literally?

The chapter claims the negative side of the Golden Rule is part of “natural law” written in everyone’s conscience, even atheists; if that’s true, what does it imply about God’s character and His expectations of humanity, and how should Christians talk about morality with non-Christians without reducing Christianity to mere conscience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want” part of the Golden Rule is in everyone’s conscience, even atheists, what does that say about God and what He expects from people? How should Christians talk about morality with non-Christians without making Christianity sound like just “listen to your conscience”?

In discussing “you will know them by their fruits,” Bercot rejects “once saved, always saved” and says the essence of the Christian life is a “fruitful… obedient love faith relationship,” not “just believing”; what kinds of “fruit” would expose a respected teacher, prophet, or influencer as false today, and how might modern Christians be tempted to excuse bad fruit because of gifting, popularity, or “results”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says you can spot false teachers by their “fruit,” and he disagrees with “once saved, always saved,” saying Christian life is obedient, loving faith, not just belief. What kinds of “fruit” today would show a respected teacher or influencer is false, and why are Christians tempted to excuse bad fruit because the person is gifted, popular, or seems effective?

Bercot presses Matthew 7:21–27: miracles are no proof of knowing Christ, “lawlessness” (anomia) is the issue, “I never knew you” is not a loophole about never being saved, and the bedrock foundation is “hears…and does”; what parts of this argument feel most threatening to common evangelical assurances of salvation, and how would you describe—without softening Jesus’ warning—what it means for salvation to be a “gift” that is also “conditional”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says in Matthew 7:21–27 that miracles don’t prove someone knows Christ, “lawlessness” is the real problem, and the solid foundation is hearing Jesus and doing what He says. What part of that most challenges common evangelical confidence about salvation, and how would you explain—without weakening Jesus’ warning—how salvation can be a free gift but still have conditions?