Discussion Questions

The lesson claims Paul teaches a “final salvation” that “will depend upon how we have lived our lives after we have been saved” (Romans 2) alongside an “initial phase” received by faith apart from the Mosaic law (Romans 3); how does holding those two phases together reshape what you assume God is like as Judge and Father? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says Paul teaches an “initial” salvation by faith (Romans 3) and a “final” salvation based on how we live afterward (Romans 2). How does believing both change how you see God as Judge and as Father?

Chrysostom is quoted answering the objection, “How are we to be saved without contributing anything at all?” by saying we “offer no small contribution…our faith”; in what ways does calling faith a “contribution” challenge common evangelical ways of talking about “no contribution” or “faith as merely receiving”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Chrysostom says we do make a contribution—our faith. How does calling faith a “contribution” challenge the way evangelicals often say we bring “nothing” and faith is only receiving?

The teacher insists Romans is not meant to summarize the whole gospel and says Paul only briefly addresses repentance in Romans, yet repentance is presented as integral “before baptism” with multiple texts; what does this imply about early Christian conversion expectations compared with how conversions are typically framed today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The teacher says Romans doesn’t cover the whole gospel and barely mentions repentance, yet says repentance mattered “before baptism.” What does that suggest about what early Christians expected in conversion compared to how conversions are talked about today?

Clement of Alexandria says, “Repentance then is a result of faith,” while Lactantius is quoted as defining repentance as professing “a person will sin no more”; what tensions do you feel between these statements and your lived experience, and how might the lesson be trying to resolve (or press) that tension? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Clement says repentance comes from faith, but Lactantius says repentance means promising you won’t sin anymore. How do these ideas clash with real life, and how do you think the lesson wants you to handle that clash?

On Romans 3:23, Origen is quoted arguing “all have sinned” includes Mary, and “Christ alone is sinless”; what does this reveal about early Christian assumptions regarding human holiness, revered figures, and the absolute uniqueness of Christ—and what discomfort does it raise for modern Christians? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen says “all have sinned” includes Mary and that only Christ is sinless. What does that show about how early Christians viewed holiness and honored people, and what feels uncomfortable about it today?

The lesson says initial justification means you “do not even have to first demonstrate a godly life,” even if you were “living a wicked life up until…conversion,” yet it also says initial salvation is conditioned on “genuine repentance”; what would “genuine repentance” have to look like to prevent this from becoming either cheap grace or hidden legalism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says you don’t need to prove a godly life before initial justification, even if you were living wickedly, but it also says it requires “genuine repentance.” What would genuine repentance look like so it doesn’t turn into cheap grace or hidden rule-keeping?

The speaker challenges the modern definition of grace as strictly “unmerited favor,” arguing the Greek *charis* can be conditional and still be grace (e.g., “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”); how does that linguistic and theological claim confront the way you’ve been taught to guard grace from “conditions”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The speaker says grace (charis) can still be grace even when it has conditions, like God giving grace to the humble. How does that push back against the way you were taught to keep grace “free of conditions”?

Irenaeus is quoted: Christ confers immortality on those “who have kept His commandments and have persevered in His love,” and even, “God confers His gifts upon those who deserve to receive them”; how do you process the word “deserve” in a Christian context, and what do you think the early Christians meant by it without denying grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Irenaeus says Christ gives immortality to those who keep his commands and that God gives gifts to those who “deserve” them. How do you understand the word “deserve” here without throwing out grace?

The lesson argues “remission of past sins” means God does not “pre-forgive our future sins,” and continuing forgiveness is conditioned on repentance/confession and forgiving others; how would embracing “past sins, not future ones” change your approach to assurance, habitual sin, and the seriousness of unforgiveness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The lesson says God forgives past sins but doesn’t pre-forgive future sins, and ongoing forgiveness depends on repentance, confession, and forgiving others. If you accepted that, how would it change your assurance, your fight with repeated sin, and how serious you take unforgiveness?

Origen warns someone might become “careless and negligent in good works” if they hear “faith alone is sufficient,” and answers that unrighteous living after justification “despises the gift” and is not a “license to sin”; where do you see your own heart tempted toward license (or toward despair), and what concrete practices would reflect “appreciation for this marvelous gift” in the way the lesson describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Origen warns that “faith alone” can make people slack in doing good, and says living unrighteously after being justified rejects God’s gift. Where are you tempted to use grace as an excuse (or to lose hope), and what habits would show real gratitude for this gift?