Discussion Questions

Paul anticipates the objection “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”—what specific misunderstandings of grace does the lesson say lead to that conclusion, and where do you see those same misunderstandings showing up in present-day Christian language or practice? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What wrong ideas about grace does the lesson say lead people to think, “If God forgives, we can keep sinning”? Where do you see those same wrong ideas in Christian talk or habits today?

The lesson describes returning to sin after baptism as “returning to our old Master Satan” and “rejecting our new Master Christ”; how does that master/slave framing reshape the way you think about “freedom in Christ,” and what parts of that framing feel hardest to accept? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the lesson’s picture of serving either Satan or Christ change what “freedom in Christ” means to you? What part of that master/slave picture is hardest for you to accept?

Ambrosiaster says God was merciful “so that we will stop sinning and obtain our due reward,” and the lesson lists two reasons we received mercy (overthrowing the devil’s kingdom; preaching God’s kingdom); what picture of God’s intentions and priorities emerges here, and how does it challenge a view of grace focused mainly on personal relief from guilt? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Based on Ambrosiaster and the two reasons for mercy, what does God seem to be aiming for? How does that challenge the idea that grace is mainly about feeling less guilty?

Origen quotes 2 Peter’s “dog returns to his vomit” and Paul’s warning about “shipwreck of their faith”; how do these warnings function in the lesson’s argument about perseverance, and what do they imply about the real possibility of turning back after “knowing the way of righteousness”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do the “dog returns to vomit” and “shipwreck of faith” warnings support the lesson’s point about staying faithful? What do they suggest about the real chance of turning back after knowing what is right?

Chrysostom says baptism made us dead to sin “once for all,” yet “after baptism, this state must continually be maintained by our own earnestness”; what does “maintaining” death to sin look like in concrete habits and choices, and how do you distinguish earnest cooperation from self-powered moralism? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it look like in daily life to keep living “dead to sin” after baptism? How can you tell the difference between working with God and trying to be good by your own power?

The lesson contrasts “genuine heartfelt repentance” in Acts (“cut to the heart”) with a “superficial altar call” that merely acknowledges being a sinner; what does the transcript present as the essential content of repentance (Tertullian: “change of mind”), and what evidence would show that repentance is real rather than counterfeit? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the lesson define real repentance as a “change of mind,” not just saying you’re a sinner? What signs would show someone’s repentance is real and not fake?

Tertullian calls repentance “the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon” and says God “tests our repentance” like a merchant examining a coin; what reactions does that transactional imagery provoke, and how does it confront modern assumptions about assurance and the timing of forgiveness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do you feel about repentance being described like a “price” for pardon and God “testing” it like a coin? How does that challenge modern ideas about being sure you’re forgiven and when forgiveness happens?

Origen argues that “someone not already dead to sin cannot be buried with Christ” because “no one is ever buried alive,” and the lesson claims infant baptism made Romans 6 “virtually meaningless”; what does this reasoning assume about early Christian baptismal practice, and how should churches today handle the tension between historical tradition and Paul’s baptism-to-new-life logic? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does Origen’s argument suggest about how early Christians practiced baptism? How should churches today deal with the pull between long traditions (like infant baptism) and Paul’s idea of baptism leading to a new life?

The lesson contrasts Anabaptists (God’s work largely “immediately before baptism,” baptism as outward sign) with early Christians (God’s work happens “during baptism if faith and repentance precede”); how does each view shape a believer’s understanding of conversion, the new birth, and accountability for a new way of life? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the Anabaptist view of baptism differ from the early Christian view described in the lesson? How does each view shape what you think conversion, new birth, and responsibility for a changed life mean?

Near the end, the lesson holds two truths together: “a dead person no longer sins” and yet “God does not demand sinless perfection… but He does require a faithful, obedient walk”; how do you keep that balance from collapsing into either complacency (“perfection isn’t required”) or despair (“I sinned, so I’m not dead to sin”), and what practices help you actually “walk” rather than “stand still”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can you hold these two ideas together: believers shouldn’t keep sinning, but God doesn’t demand perfect sinlessness? What helps you avoid either getting lazy about sin or feeling hopeless when you fail, and what habits help you keep walking faithfully?