Discussion Questions

David Bercot describes Calvin as writing and preaching with “singular confidence” that his message was “coming from God,” even claiming his doctrines were “put in his brain by God”; what kinds of authority claims are being made here, and how should Christians discern when confidence crosses into presumption or spiritual tyranny? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Calvin spoke as if God directly gave him his message. How can Christians tell the difference between real spiritual confidence and dangerous pride or control over others?

The lesson traces Calvin’s early fascination with Stoicism (everything predestined; accept your lot; emotional resignation) and notes Calvin tried to show similarities between Stoicism and Christ; where do you see Stoic assumptions reshaping Christian language in the transcript, and what picture of God results from that blending? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see Stoic ideas (like “everything is decided” and “don’t show emotion”) changing Christian words in the transcript? What kind of God do you end up with when those ideas mix?

Calvin’s “double predestination” is presented as God arbitrarily choosing a small elect for heaven and everyone else for hell, not based on foreseen faith or life; what does this imply about God’s character and “mercy,” and how does that compare with the way God is revealed in Jesus’s life and teaching? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God chooses a few people for heaven and the rest for hell for no reason we can see, what does that say about God’s character and mercy? How does that compare to what we see in Jesus’s life and teaching?

Bercot says Calvin’s system had a “very positive side” because the elect can know “beyond doubt” they are elect and “cannot possibly lose” salvation; how does that kind of assurance function psychologically and socially in a community, and what dangers does Bercot suggest it produced in Geneva? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “elect” feel totally sure they can’t lose salvation, how might that affect them and their community? What harm does Bercot say this kind of certainty caused in Geneva?

Calvin’s claim that Christ’s moral teaching is essentially the Law of Moses (minus ceremonial law) leads to the idea that every nation can become a new “Israel”; what assumptions about God’s purposes for nations are embedded in that idea, and how would early Christians from the first three centuries have pushed back against it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus’s moral teaching is basically the Law of Moses without the ceremonial parts, why would people think any nation can become a new “Israel”? How might early Christians in the first three centuries have disagreed?

The transcript describes a tight church–state partnership: mandatory weekly church attendance, elders examining lives, excommunication by the church, and state punishment to keep the nation “pure” and avoid God’s wrath; what does this system say about how God governs people, and how does it collide with the “turn the other cheek” ethic Bercot highlights? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it say about God and government when the state forces church attendance and punishes people to keep the nation “pure”? How does that clash with Jesus’s teaching to “turn the other cheek”?

Bercot connects Calvinism with the origin of the conversion testimony requirement for church membership (detailed testimony proving agreement with doctrine and a grace-conversion), contrasting it with Acts (repent and be baptized); what do you think is gained and lost when “belonging” is filtered through a testimony culture, and how might this shape who is seen as truly Christian today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What is gained and what is lost when church membership depends on giving a detailed conversion testimony instead of simply repenting and being baptized? How might that change who gets seen as a “real Christian” today?

Calvin’s teaching on vocation, hard work, and prosperity is summarized as wealth being a sign of God’s approval and poverty being a sign of judgment (“Blessed are the rich” versus Jesus’s “Blessed are the poor”); how does this reframe the gospel’s relationship to money, and where do you see those assumptions alive in modern evangelical culture? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If wealth is treated as God’s approval and poverty as God’s judgment, how does that change the gospel’s message about money? Where do you see this way of thinking in modern evangelical culture?

Bercot calls Calvinism a “ready-made kit” for individual, church, and nation—highly organized, effective, energizing, and “enormously self-assured,” yet “not historical Christianity”; what features make a system successful while still being unlike the Kingdom of God, and how can a church today tell the difference between fruitfulness and mere power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can a church system be organized and effective, but still not look like the Kingdom of God? How can a church tell the difference between real spiritual fruit and just gaining power?

The Geneva stories (banishment for rejecting doctrine, “religious police state,” torture and executions including Servetus burned alive, opponents drawn and quartered) are contrasted with “Kingdom citizens” loving enemies; when Bercot argues that what is unchristian today was equally unchristian then because “Jesus Christ is the same,” what does that demand of our own blind spots—especially where modern Christians excuse violence, coercion, or political control in Jesus’s name? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If violence and forced religion were unchristian then because Jesus never changes, what does that say about our own blind spots now? Where might Christians today excuse violence, pressure, or political control in Jesus’s name?