Discussion Questions

The chapter claims Calvin “shaped Scripture to fit his theological system”; where do you see that happening in the examples Bercot gives (oaths, nonresistance, loving enemies), and what does that imply about the kind of God Calvin’s system needed God to be? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says Calvin made Scripture fit his own system. Where do you see that in Bercot’s examples (oaths, nonresistance, loving enemies), and what kind of God does Calvin’s system seem to need?

Bercot says “so much of what was preached…were Calvin’s thoughts, not those of Jesus”; what would it look like in a church’s preaching for Jesus’ words to actually function as the controlling authority rather than a theological framework imported from elsewhere? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says many sermons were more Calvin than Jesus. What would preaching look like if Jesus’ words were the main authority instead of a pre-made theology?

Calvin argues that “Swear not at all” doesn’t forbid all oaths, calling strict obedience “extreme strictness”; what assumptions about human sin (“necessity demands it”) and about God’s commands are embedded in that move, and how do those assumptions affect obedience today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Calvin says “Swear not at all” doesn’t ban every oath and calls strict obedience “too strict.” What does that assume about human sin and about God’s commands, and how does that shape how we obey today?

Bercot comments, “That, of course, is Augustine speaking, not Jesus”; what are some ways Christians practically treat famous theologians as interpretive authorities over Christ, and how can a group distinguish “historic wisdom” from “muffling God’s Word”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says, “That’s Augustine speaking, not Jesus.” How do Christians sometimes treat famous teachers as higher authorities than Jesus, and how can we tell the difference between helpful tradition and blocking God’s Word?

In the “turn the other cheek” section, Calvin warns that literal obedience would “encourage” aggressors and says it’s “nitpicking about words”; when you hear arguments like that in modern settings (self-defense, lawsuits, retaliation online), what actually drives the interpretation—faithfulness to Jesus’ wording or fear of the outcomes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Calvin says taking “turn the other cheek” literally would make things worse and is just arguing over words. When people use similar arguments today (self-defense, lawsuits, online payback), is it really about following Jesus’ words or fearing what might happen?

Calvin’s claim that Christ “does not introduce new laws” but only corrects the scribes becomes the basis for concluding that what was allowable under the law (including war) remains allowable for Christians; how does that reading reshape what Jesus came to do, and where does it collide with the Sermon on the Mount as presented in the transcript? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Calvin says Jesus didn’t bring new laws, only corrected the scribes, so things allowed under the old law (like war) are still allowed. How does that change what Jesus came to do, and how does it clash with the Sermon on the Mount in the transcript?

If early Christians took “love your enemies…do good…pray for” as a direct command from Jesus (as Bercot implies Calvin sidestepped), what practices and communal instincts would you expect to see in the early church regarding enemies, persecution, and state violence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If early Christians treated “love your enemies…do good…pray for” as a direct command, what habits would you expect them to have when facing enemies, persecution, and government violence?

In the head-covering example, Bercot argues Calvin imported “public worship” into 1 Corinthians 11 even though the passage “makes no mention whatsoever of public assemblies”; what are common ways we import assumptions into a text, and what safeguards could keep a church from repeating the “blind leading the blind” dynamic he describes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says Calvin read “public worship” into 1 Corinthians 11 even though the passage doesn’t mention church meetings. How do we usually add our own assumptions to a Bible text, and what could a church do to avoid that kind of mistake?

Bercot calls it “absurd” to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 as public assembly because it would clash with 1 Corinthians 14; how should Christians weigh apparent tensions between passages—by harmonizing through commentary traditions, by re-checking premises, or by letting one passage correct the other—and what does that reveal about our view of Scripture’s clarity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Bercot says reading 1 Corinthians 11 as a public meeting creates problems with 1 Corinthians 14. When Bible passages seem to clash, should we force them to fit, re-check our assumptions, or let one passage correct the other, and what does that show about how clear we think Scripture is?

The chapter ends: “dead theologians like Augustine, Calvin, and Luther still rule the church from their graves”; where do you see that rule operating in your own tradition (in assumptions about grace, obedience, assurance, freedom, or “what Jesus really meant”), and what concrete changes would be required for Jesus’ commands to regain first place even if it makes you feel unsafe or out of step with evangelical norms? JumpstartAnother way to ask: The chapter says dead theologians still control the church. Where do you see that in your tradition (grace, obedience, assurance, freedom, or “what Jesus really meant”), and what real changes would it take to put Jesus’ commands first even if it feels risky or unpopular?