Discussion Questions

David Bercot says “much of the essence of Christianity is intrinsically involved” in how we harmonize Paul and James, and he frames it as “the gospel of Jesus versus the gospel of man”; what specific “gospel of man” assumptions did you hear him confronting, and where do you feel personally tempted to protect those assumptions rather than let the New Testament correct you? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What “man-made gospel” ideas did you hear Bercot pushing back against, and where are you tempted to hold onto those ideas instead of letting the New Testament correct you?

Bercot claims “practically nobody” in most of church history thought Paul and James contradicted each other until Luther; if that’s true, what does it suggest about how God has preserved truth in the church (and about our confidence in modern “standard” Protestant readings), and what would be the most uncomfortable implication for how you learned the faith? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If almost no one thought Paul and James disagreed until Luther, what does that say about how God has kept truth in the church, and what’s the hardest thing that would mean about how you learned the faith?

He lists four “corrupt methodologies” (relegating Jesus to the back closet, proof-texting, turning writers into technical theologians, and dishonest translations/reference works); which of the four did you recognize in your own habits most clearly, and what would it practically look like to repent of that methodology in how you read Scripture this month? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which of the four “bad methods” did you see most in your own Bible reading habits, and what is one practical way you could change that this month?

Bercot compares starting with Paul to learning Moses by reading Joshua, or learning Plato by reading Aristotle; in your experience, how does “going to Paul to explain what Jesus supposedly taught about salvation” show up in preaching, evangelism tools (like the “Romans road”), or discipleship materials you’ve used? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Where have you seen people use Paul to explain what Jesus “really meant” about salvation (like in preaching, the Romans road, or discipleship tools)?

Luther called James “an epistle of straw” and ranked Romans/John/Peter above Matthew-Mark-Luke; Bercot argues Luther preferred John partly because it doesn’t record the Sermon on the Mount and uses “believe” far more—how does that critique change the way you interpret modern evangelical emphasis on John 3:16 and “belief,” and what parts of Jesus’ teaching feel easiest to quietly sideline? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does Bercot’s critique change the way you think about the heavy focus on John 3:16 and “believing,” and which parts of Jesus’ teaching are easiest for you to ignore?

In John 15, Jesus says branches “in me” that don’t bear fruit are “taken away” and “thrown into the fire,” and Bercot uses that to confront “unconditional eternal security”; what do you think Jesus intended his disciples to feel and do after hearing that warning, and what modern doctrines or comfort-slogans does that passage make harder to say with confidence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In John 15, what do you think Jesus wanted his disciples to feel and do after warning that fruitless branches are thrown into the fire, and what popular comfort sayings does that make harder to trust?

Bercot summarizes Jesus’ salvation teaching as an “obedient love-faith relationship” (OLFR) and says salvation can’t be reduced to formulas—then he uses the “how many whiskers make a beard?” argument; what does a relational model of salvation clarify that a formula cannot, and where does a relational model make you feel less in control than you’d like? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How does thinking of salvation as a real relationship of love, faith, and obedience help more than a simple formula, and where does that make you feel like you have less control?

He lumps multiple systems together as “everything else” besides OLFR—Christo-Judaism, sacramentalism, meritism (“a second Mosaic law”), “goodism,” “Old Orderism,” and evangelical Protestantism that treats obedience as unnecessary; which of these did you find most piercing or offensive, and what concrete examples can you give of how that system can exist while a person still lacks genuine abiding in Christ? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which system he listed bothered you the most, and what is a real-life example of someone being in that system but not truly abiding in Christ?

Bercot insists that some people in “wrong systems” are still truly saved because “having the right answer isn’t what’s going to save you… it’s actually having the relationship”; how should that reshape the way your group talks about other denominations, evaluates testimonies, and decides what errors are “stumbling” and what errors are simply inconsistent with someone’s lived allegiance to Jesus? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If being saved is more about relationship with Jesus than having perfect answers, how should that change how you talk about other denominations and decide which mistakes are truly dangerous?

When Bercot warns against substituting subjective “Jesus told me” impressions for obedience to Jesus’ actual recorded commands (especially the Sermon on the Mount), what specific commandments he quoted—forgiving others (Matt. 6:14–15), refusing judgmentalism (Matt. 7:1–2), the narrow way (Matt. 7:13–14), doing the Father’s will rather than saying “Lord, Lord” (Matt. 7:21–23), and doing Jesus’ sayings (Matt. 7:24–27)—most exposes a gap in your life, and what would change this week if you treated that gap as a salvation issue rather than a “growth area”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Which command of Jesus he quoted shows the biggest gap in your life, and what would you do differently this week if you treated it as a salvation issue instead of just “something to grow in”?