Discussion Questions

The speaker insists Romans can be “simplified,” but warns that most churches simplify it into “we’re saved by faith alone; our works play no role”; what specific parts of Romans (and the New Testament) does he believe that slogan ignores, and why does he call that simplification “not honest”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which parts of Romans and the rest of the New Testament does he think get ignored when people say, “We’re saved by faith alone, so works don’t matter”? Why does he say that kind of shortcut is “not honest”?

The speaker claims “two phases of salvation” is where “99% of the people mess up”; how does his definition of initial salvation (clean slate, justified, born again, adopted, added to the worldwide church) reshape how you would answer the question, “Have you been saved?” and what does that imply about God’s willingness to declare the ungodly righteous? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does his idea of “initial salvation” (a clean slate, justified, born again, adopted, added to the church) change how you answer, “Have you been saved?” What does that say about God calling ungodly people righteous?

The speaker says a baptized Christian should be able to say, “Yes, I have been saved… there should not be any question about that”; what assumptions about assurance, faith, and God’s promise are being challenged here within Anabaptist life (including the “I hope to be” mindset he attributes to some Amish)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does he think a baptized Christian should confidently say, “Yes, I have been saved”? What beliefs about assurance, faith, and God’s promise does this challenge in Anabaptist life, including the Amish “I hope to be” mindset?

He argues Protestants “stop” at the past-tense salvation texts and then tell youth, “God wants you to obey, but it doesn’t affect your salvation”; what do you think motivates that approach, and how does his “victorious cycle” (prayer → faith → obedience → stronger faith) contradict the idea that obedience is spiritually helpful but salvation-neutral? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do some Protestants tell young people, “Obeying God is good, but it doesn’t affect your salvation”? How does his “victorious cycle” (prayer → faith → obedience → stronger faith) argue that obedience really matters spiritually?

The Space Shuttle Columbia illustration is used to argue that launching well isn’t enough if you “do not make it to the finish line”; in what ways does that analogy clarify his view of endurance, and in what ways might it distort the Christian life if taken too far (especially regarding God’s power “to keep them from falling”)? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does the Space Shuttle Columbia story help explain his point that you must “finish the race,” not just start well? How could that picture mislead people if it makes them forget God’s power to keep believers from falling?

When the speaker cites Romans 2 (“God will render to every man according to his works… eternal life to those who by perseverance in doing good…”), he says skipping chapter two is like a lawyer presenting only paragraph three of a will; where have you seen “chapter-skipping” happen in teaching, publishing, or personal Bible reading, and what would repentance look like for handling Scripture the way we’d handle contracts? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people skip hard parts of Romans (like Romans 2) and only teach the parts they like? If we treated Scripture like a contract, what would “repentance” look like in how we read and teach it?

He repeatedly quotes Romans 6 and Romans 8 (“slaves… leading to death,” “if you live after the flesh you will die”), plus Menno Simons’ line, “End of discussion”; what makes these claims feel threatening to modern evangelical assurance, and what do they suggest about God’s character as both merciful giver and uncompromising judge? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why do warnings like Romans 6 and 8 (“if you live by the flesh you will die”) feel scary to modern evangelicals who want strong assurance? What do these warnings say about God being both merciful and a serious judge?

The speaker argues Romans is mainly about Jews, Gentiles, circumcision, and the law of Moses (Acts 15 background), not “gospel vs commandments”; how would early Christians in Rome—living close to the Jew/Gentile controversy—have heard Paul’s repeated use of the word “law,” and what modern assumptions does that correct? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Romans is mainly about Jews, Gentiles, circumcision, and the law of Moses, how would Christians in Rome have understood Paul’s repeated word “law”? What modern assumptions about “law” does that correct?

He says there are “two laws”—the law of Moses and “the law of Christ / law of the Spirit of life”—and quotes Dirk Phillips calling it “false exegesis” to compare Christ’s ordinances with circumcision; what present-day church practices or teachings effectively treat Christ’s commands as if they were optional “Mosaic” burdens, and why might that be a category mistake? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What church habits today treat Jesus’ commands like optional burdens, as if they were just “Moses’ law”? Why does he say that mixes up two different categories?

The speaker distinguishes “two kinds of works”: works of the Mosaic law (unnecessary, even harmful if trusted) and works of faithful obedience to Christ (essential for final salvation), using Cornelius vs. the Philippian jailer; how should this reshape the way a church evaluates candidates for baptism and membership, and what would it look like to uphold “no prior works required” without sliding into “you can live in willful sin and it won’t affect your salvation”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If there are “works of Moses’ law” versus “works of obedient faith in Christ,” how should that change how a church looks at people seeking baptism and membership? How can a church say “no good works needed first” without also teaching, “You can keep sinning and still be fine”?