Discussion Questions

David Bercot says Romans 8 develops Paul’s point that after “initial salvation by grace through faith,” God “requires us to walk faithfully with Christ…for the remainder of our lives”; how does that claim reshape what you think God is ultimately aiming to produce in saved people, and where do you feel resistance to that idea? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If salvation starts by grace through faith but then God expects a lifelong faithful walk with Christ, what do you think God is trying to grow in saved people? What part of that idea do you push back against or struggle with?

The lesson insists the Mosaic Law could “identify sin and condemn it” but give “no power,” while Jesus gives “immediate forgiveness and justification” and then “enabling power through the Holy Spirit”; where have you seen Christians (including yourself) try to live the Christ-life on “our own strength,” and what symptoms show you’ve slipped into that? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen yourself or other Christians try to live like Jesus by willpower instead of the Holy Spirit? What signs show you you’re doing it in your own strength?

Paul’s “no condemnation” is tied here to “those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit”; how does making “no condemnation” conditional on an ongoing walk confront common evangelical ways of talking about assurance? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If “no condemnation” is for those who keep walking by the Spirit, how does that challenge the way many evangelicals talk about being sure you’re saved? What does it do to your idea of assurance?

Chrysostom is quoted saying that sins after baptism come from “our own spiritual laxity,” because after baptism “we have the power not to walk after the flesh”; what does that assume about baptism, human responsibility, and the Spirit’s empowerment that many modern Christians don’t assume? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Chrysostom says sins after baptism happen because we get spiritually lazy even though we now have power not to follow the flesh, what does that say about what baptism does and what we’re responsible for? How does that differ from what many Christians assume today?

Theodoret says that after receiving the Spirit, “our desires can no longer get the mastery over us without our own consent”; how does that change the way you interpret recurring temptation and “compulsive” patterns—what role do consent, habits, and spiritual laziness play in your own story? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If desires can’t control us without our consent after we receive the Spirit, how does that change how you see repeated temptation or “compulsive” habits? In your own life, how much comes from consent, habits you’ve built, or spiritual laziness?

The lesson calls the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” a real set of “laws” that are “embedded in our hearts” and followed “with joy,” contrasted with Mosaic dietary/ceremonial regulations; what do you think it looks like in daily decisions for God’s laws to be internal rather than external, and where do you still treat Christianity as external regulation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like day to day for God’s “laws” to be written in your heart so you follow them with joy, not just as rules on the outside? Where do you still treat Christianity like external rule-keeping?

Ambrosiaster says “sin still remains in our flesh” but “will not be able to injure us so long as we reject this sin with the assistance of God”; what does it mean for sin to “remain” yet be rendered unable to “injure,” and how does that compare with the way your tradition talks about indwelling sin and victory? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does it mean to say sin is still in us but can’t really harm us if we reject it with God’s help? How does that compare with what your church tradition teaches about ongoing sin and victory?

The lesson emphasizes Christ’s incarnation as fully human “in the likeness of sinful flesh” yet “free from sin,” even “born in the kind of body that Adam had before sin”; how does that portrayal of Jesus’ humanity affect what you believe God expects from human obedience empowered by the Spirit? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus was fully human like us but without sin, how does that shape what you think God expects from human obedience through the Spirit? Does it raise or change your view of what’s possible?

Irenaeus is quoted saying Christ “began anew the long line of human beings,” “bound the strongman,” and that “unless man himself had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been fittingly conquered”; what picture of God’s wisdom and purpose in salvation is being presented here (beyond “forgiveness”), and how does it challenge more transactional views of the atonement? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Christ started a new human story and defeated the enemy as a human, what does that say God’s goal in salvation is besides just forgiveness? How does that challenge a “payment/transaction” way of thinking about the atonement?

Origen describes people who “come to church,” honor leaders, and give offerings, yet show “no inclination to also improve their manner of life,” concluding “they are not in Christ Jesus” because they “live after the flesh”; in what concrete ways can a churchgoing life become “minding the things of the flesh,” and what would it look like this week to deliberately “mind the things of the Spirit” instead? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How can someone go to church, give money, and respect leaders but still live focused on the flesh? What would it look like for you this week to choose to focus on the Spirit instead?