Discussion Questions

The lesson insists Paul is not condemning the physical body but “being carnally minded”; what, specifically, counts as a “way of thinking that is earthly, gross, and eager for the things of this life,” and how would you recognize it in a baptized churchgoer’s daily priorities? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Paul is warning against an “earthly” way of thinking, what kinds of thoughts and goals count as that? How would you spot it in the daily choices and priorities of someone who is baptized and goes to church?

Barnabas is quoted warning, “Do not live a solitary life…as if you were already finally justified…by coming together…make inquiry among all”; how does this challenge modern individualistic Christianity, and what would “coming together…to make inquiry” look like in your actual week? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Barnabas’ warning against living a “solitary life” challenge today’s me-and-Jesus style of Christianity? What would “coming together to make inquiry” look like in your normal week?

The teacher argues Paul isn’t pitting “law against gospel” but Mosaic Law versus “the laws of the new covenant”; what do you think those new-covenant laws are in this lesson, and how does “subject to the law of God” confront common evangelical instincts about freedom from law? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In this lesson, what are the “laws of the new covenant” Paul expects Christians to follow? How does being “subject to the law of God” push back on the idea that Christians are free from any law?

Chrysostom and others are used to show that “cannot be subject to the law of God” means “so long as he has a carnal mind”; how does the lesson’s use of examples (Paul, the thief on the cross, Manasseh, Nineveh, David, Peter, the immoral Corinthian) reshape how you think about repentance, change, and the possibility of restoration? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How do the lesson’s examples (Paul, the thief on the cross, Manasseh, Nineveh, David, Peter, and the Corinthian sinner) change how you think about real repentance and lasting change? Do they affect how hopeful you are about someone being restored after serious sin?

The lesson describes the Gnostic misuse of “those who are in the flesh cannot please God,” and Chrysostom mocks the literal reading (“Are we to cut our bodies in pieces?”); what does this teach about how to read Scripture responsibly, and where do you see modern Christians falling into different-but-similar interpretive errors? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What does the Gnostic mistake about “in the flesh cannot please God” teach you about reading Scripture the right way? Where do you see Christians today making different but similar mistakes in how they interpret verses?

Irenaeus’ “wild olive grafted” analogy says conversion doesn’t remove the nature of the flesh but changes “the quality of its fruit…his works”; how does that land with the way your tradition talks about faith, works, and assurance, and what “different name” (identity) should realistically show up in observable behavior? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If conversion changes the “fruit” (your actions) but doesn’t remove having a body, how does that fit with how your church talks about faith, works, and assurance? What kind of new identity should show up in visible, everyday behavior?

The transcript pauses to discuss “Spirit of Christ” and even notes the Spirit “proceeds from the Father, not from the Son,” while Origen suggests it could mean the “mind and teachings of Christ”; how does each reading (Holy Spirit vs. mind/teachings) change what it means to “have the Spirit of Christ,” and how would you test whether you actually have it? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does it change things if “Spirit of Christ” means the Holy Spirit versus Christ’s mind and teachings? What would you look for to test whether you truly have the Spirit of Christ?

The lesson claims early Christians read Romans 8:10 as “the body is dead to sin,” not “dead because of sin,” and says our bodies should be like “a corpse…with respect to the working of sin”; what concrete practices and boundaries would make that claim believable in areas like sexuality, speech, entertainment, spending, and anger? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans 8:10 means your body should be “dead to sin,” what practical rules and habits would make that believable in sexuality, speech, entertainment, spending, and anger? What boundaries would you actually put in place?

Several fathers are quoted saying the Spirit can be “quenched,” “withdraw,” and may not “continue to dwell” after initial conversion; what actions, habits, or attitudes in the lesson’s framework would drive away the Spirit, and how does this challenge the idea that salvation is secure regardless of how a Christian lives? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What choices or attitudes, in this lesson’s view, could cause the Spirit to be “quenched” or to leave a person? How does that challenge the idea that salvation is secure no matter how a Christian lives?

Romans 8:13 is pressed as teaching no “unconditional eternal security,” with warnings aimed at “easy believerism” (and Minno Simons’ quote, “If you live after the flesh, you will die”); what parts of this warning do you instinctively resist, and what would it require for your church community to take Paul’s condition seriously without sliding into despair or self-righteousness? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which parts of the warning “if you live after the flesh, you will die” do you most want to push back against? What would your church need to do to take Paul’s warning seriously without becoming hopeless or proud?