Discussion Questions

David Bercot claims that reading the early Christian writings is enough to show that modern theologians “don’t even remotely think like” Christians within one or two generations of the apostles; what specific differences in “how they thought,” “worship practices,” and “reasoning” would you expect to find if his claim is true, and which of those differences would most unsettle your current assumptions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Bercot is right that early Christians thought very differently than modern theologians, what differences would you expect in their ideas, worship, and way of arguing? Which difference would most challenge what you assume now?

The chapter says modern Christians often conclude, “The early Christians got things all mixed up,” but it “never occurs” to them that the primitive church would find today’s Christianity baffling; what doctrines or habits in your church life do you suspect second-century Christians might find most strange, and why? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What beliefs or church habits today do you think Christians in the 100s (second century) would find the strangest? Why?

Bercot argues that many believers imagine the apostle John would feel at home in a conservative church today but out of place with Ignatius or Polycarp; what does that assumption reveal about how we locate authority—Scripture alone as text, Scripture as historically received, or trusted modern interpreters—and where do you see yourself defaulting? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If someone thinks the apostle John would fit in better with a conservative church today than with Ignatius or Polycarp, what does that say about where they look for authority? Where do you tend to look first—just the Bible text, the Bible as the early church understood it, or modern teachers?

Using Titus 1:8–9 (“holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught”), Bercot says the first-century church had “no room…for brilliant theological innovators”; what view of God’s intentions for preserving truth in the church is implied here, and how does it challenge the way we celebrate “new insights” or “fresh takes” today? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the early church had “no room” for new theological inventors, what does that say about how God meant truth to be kept in the church? How does that challenge our love for “new insights” today?

The chapter states that second-century Christians “equated theological innovation with error” and that “the only church fathers they knew were Jesus and his apostles”; what would it look like in practice to treat innovation as a warning sign, and what kinds of teachings in your tradition might not survive that test? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would it look like to treat new teachings as a possible warning sign instead of an upgrade? What teachings in your tradition might fail that test?

Bercot calls Philip Schaff’s praise of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin an “indictment,” saying they were not pupils of Jesus and “weren’t even pupils of Paul…They were reinterpreters of Paul”; what would count as evidence that someone is interpreting Paul out of context and “making him a teacher above his own master”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: What would show that someone is pulling Paul’s words out of context and making Paul say more than Paul meant? How could someone end up treating Paul like a higher teacher than Jesus?

Bercot asks: if Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were merely teaching the historic faith, why are they so prominent and why can’t earlier writers be produced who taught the same; how should the inability (or ability) to trace a doctrine “back to the end of the first century” shape what you treat as essential Christianity? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If a doctrine can’t be clearly traced back to Christians near the end of the first century, how should that affect whether you call it essential to Christianity? If it can be traced that far back, how should that change your confidence in it?

The chapter uses Ambrose to dispute Luther’s claim of precedent and quotes Ambrose tying “receiving Christ’s words” to “amending his ways,” turning from sin, and keeping God’s commandments; how does that logic confront common evangelical instincts about grace, obedience, assurance, and what it means to “receive Christ”? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Ambrose connects “receiving Christ’s words” with turning from sin and obeying God—how does that push against common evangelical ideas about grace, obedience, assurance, and what it means to “receive Christ”?

Bercot says defenders of Luther/Calvin are forced to claim the Reformers were “restoring the faith,” which implies the apostles’ immediate successors “quickly lost it all,” even losing crucial doctrines and Greek; what view of Christ’s promise (“Lo, I am with you always…”) and of the Holy Spirit’s guardianship of the church is at stake in that restoration narrative? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the Reformers were “restoring the faith,” does that mean the church quickly lost key truths right after the apostles? What does that imply about Jesus’s promise to stay with his church and the Holy Spirit’s role in protecting it?

The chapter contrasts “the gospel of easy believers” with what Bercot calls the “Kingdom gospel,” claiming it was predominant in the second and third centuries, then marginalized from the fourth century onward, yet never disappeared; if you accepted that storyline, what would it require you to change in your daily discipleship (habits, choices, risk tolerance, relationship to marginalization), and what would you most fear losing? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the early church mainly preached a “Kingdom gospel” instead of “easy belief,” what would you need to change in your daily discipleship (habits, choices, willingness to suffer)? What would you be most afraid to lose?