David Bercot argues that Romans 5 is not primarily “a treatise on original sin,” but a continuation of Paul’s key points “from new perspectives,” especially how one man’s death (Christ) can open life to all—what changes in how you read Romans 5 if you start with that stated purpose instead of starting with inherited “fall” debates? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If you read Romans 5 mainly as Paul showing how Christ’s death brings life to everyone, instead of starting with debates about inherited sin, how does your understanding of the chapter change?
The lesson insists that “we obtain peace with God at the time of our conversion in baptism,” yet it is “not a situation of once peace, always peace”; what do you do with the claim (supported by Origen and Hebrews 10:26–29) that returning to sin “renews the former enmity,” “dissolves the work of Christ,” and “undoes Christ’s suffering on the cross”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If peace with God begins at conversion in baptism but can be lost, what do you think about the warning that going back to sin makes you God’s enemy again and “undoes” Christ’s work?
Chrysostom is quoted saying Paul shifts to “our manner of living” to prevent people from using faith “as grounds for spiritual laxity,” paraphrased as: “let us not sin anymore…to do so would be to make war with God”—where do you see modern Christianity subtly (or openly) making room for that “laxity,” and what would it look like to remove those permissions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where do you see Christians today (quietly or openly) acting like faith gives them permission to be careless about sin, and what would need to change to stop that?
Theodoret is cited warning that without moral exhortation people would argue “faith alone was sufficient for justification” and neglect “practical virtue”; in your experience, what are the real-life habits and ministry cultures that grow when Christians assume justification language cancels the urgency of practical obedience? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When people think “faith alone” means obedience and good habits don’t matter much, what kinds of lifestyles and church cultures tend to grow from that?
A major portion of the lesson argues Romans 5:1 should read “Let us have peace with God” rather than “We have peace with God,” and Bercot claims many scholars chose the latter for Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist theological reasons—how does this accusation of theological bias in textual decisions challenge your trust in modern translations and in your own theological reflexes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If some scholars chose “We have peace with God” because of their theology, how does that affect your trust in Bible translations and your own knee-jerk beliefs?
Bercot points to multiple New Testament exhortations addressed to believers—“be reconciled to God” (2 Cor 5:20), “be diligent to be found in peace” (2 Pet 3:14), and warnings that loving the world makes one “an enemy of God” (James 4; 1 John 2:15)—what concrete markers would tell a church that its members are drifting from peace with God even while still calling themselves “saved”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What clear signs would show that people in a church are drifting from peace with God even though they still call themselves “saved”?
The lesson ties maintaining peace with God to Jesus’ command: “Abide in my love…If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love,” and emphasizes “neither one is automatic”—how would discipleship practices need to change if abiding is treated as a real conditional relationship rather than a guaranteed status? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “abiding in Jesus’ love” depends on obeying him and isn’t automatic, how should discipleship in the church change?
On Romans 5:2, Chrysostom is quoted warning: “when you hear of grace, do not think that thereby the need for effort…is set aside,” and even says Paul sometimes calls good works “graces” because we need “assistance from above”—how does this early-Christian way of holding together grace and effort confront common evangelical ways of talking about “works” as if they’re always opposed to grace? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the early Christian idea that grace and effort work together challenge the common evangelical habit of treating “works” like the opposite of grace?
The lesson says true Christians “not only endure afflictions…they even rejoice in them,” and broadens tribulation beyond martyrdom to “ridicule, family opposition, ostracism”; which of those forms of hostility are you most tempted to avoid by compromising, and what would it look like to “rejoice” rather than merely “survive”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which kind of pressure—ridicule, family pushback, or being left out—most tempts you to compromise, and what would it look like to rejoice in it instead of just getting through it?
Bercot reasons: if tribulation produces endurance, and endurance brings “God’s approval,” then “His approval is obviously not a certainty,” and therefore “neither is His peace”—how does that unsettled, non-automatic view of approval affect assurance, fear, perseverance, and the way you interpret promises like “hope does not make us ashamed” in Romans 5:5? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If God’s approval and peace aren’t guaranteed but are connected to endurance, how does that affect your confidence, your fears, your staying faithful, and how you read Romans 5:5 (“hope does not make us ashamed”)?
Keep studying
Go deeper from here
Return to the full lesson, continue the course, or keep browsing related resources.
