Book Club Questions for Basic Christianity

1.Stott argues that the right approach to Christianity requires both open minds and honest hearts — a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Why do you think he felt it necessary to address the reader's posture before presenting any evidence? Do you think most people approach religion with genuine openness?

2.Stott distinguishes between intellectual difficulties (honest questions about evidence and reason) and moral difficulties (reluctance to accept Christianity's ethical demands). Which of these, in your experience, tends to be the bigger obstacle for people you know — including yourself?

3.He suggests that some people reject Christianity not because they have examined it and found it wanting, but because they have never seriously examined it at all. Does that description ring true for anyone you know? How does it challenge you personally?

1.Stott opens by examining the character of Jesus as attested in the Gospels — his moral perfection, his freedom from guilt or self-reproach, and the striking fact that he never asked for forgiveness or expressed any sense of personal sin. Why does Stott consider this significant? What would we expect of a truly good person who was merely human?

2.He notes that Jesus's enemies were unable to convict him of sin — even at his trial, the charges against him were contradictory and unsubstantiated. How does the historical record of Jesus's opponents' failure to find genuine fault in him add to the argument Stott is building?

3.Stott quotes the challenge Jesus issued in John 8:46 — 'Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?' No one answered. Compare this to the behavior of history's greatest moral teachers (Socrates, Confucius, the Buddha, Muhammad, or any reformer you know of). Do any of them make a similar claim? What does Jesus's uniqueness here suggest?

1.Stott draws attention to the extraordinary way Jesus taught — not 'the scribes say' or 'thus says the Lord,' but 'I say to you.' How is this different from every other prophet or teacher in Israel's history? What is Jesus implicitly claiming by teaching with this kind of authority?

2.Jesus forgave sins — not just sins against himself, but sins in general. Stott points out that the teachers of the law were quite right to be scandalized: 'Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (Mark 2:7). Why is forgiving sins in this absolute way a claim to divinity? How does this differ from one person forgiving another for a personal offense?

3.Stott examines Jesus's claim in John 14:6 — 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' Many people today find this claim offensive or arrogant. How does Stott help us see it differently — as flowing naturally from who Jesus is, rather than being an arbitrary exclusion?

1.Stott argues that the resurrection is not a peripheral miracle added to Christianity, but the very cornerstone on which everything else rests. Why is the resurrection so central — not just evidentially, but theologically? What would Christianity be without it?

2.Stott reviews the evidence for the empty tomb. He considers and rejects several alternative explanations — the disciples stole the body, the women went to the wrong tomb, Jesus merely swooned. Walk through one of these theories. Why does Stott find it unsatisfactory? Do you find his reasoning convincing?

3.The post-resurrection appearances are a key part of Stott's case. Paul lists specific named witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, including a group of five hundred people, 'most of whom are still living.' Why would Paul make this kind of checkable, falsifiable appeal if the appearances were legendary rather than historical?

1.Stott opens Part Two with a pivotal shift: having established who Jesus is, he now asks why Jesus came. What does it reveal about the structure of the gospel that Stott treats human sinfulness only after establishing Christ's identity? Why does the sequence matter?

2.Stott argues that sin is not merely wrongdoing but a fundamental disorder of the will — a turning away from God toward self. How does this definition differ from the popular idea of sin as simply breaking rules? What changes when sin is understood relationally rather than merely morally?

3.Stott uses the concept of 'self-centeredness' as the root of sin — that we have dethroned God and enthroned ourselves. Where do you see this pattern most clearly in your own life? Is this a diagnosis you recognize, or does it feel unfair or overstated?

1.Stott describes the consequences of sin in terms of three broken relationships: with God (guilt and estrangement), with others (conflict and exploitation), and within ourselves (shame and disintegration). Which of these three fractures do you see most clearly in the world around you? Which do you feel most acutely in your own experience?

2.Stott argues that death — spiritual and physical — is the ultimate consequence of sin. Romans 6:23 frames this starkly: 'the wages of sin is death.' How does understanding death as a consequence of rebellion against God, rather than merely a biological fact, change how we think about it?

3.Stott surveys the various human attempts to solve the human problem — education, politics, psychology, religion, and self-improvement. Why does he find each of these insufficient on its own? Do you find his critique fair, or does it seem too dismissive?

1.Stott argues that the death of Christ was not a martyrdom, not merely a moral example, and not an accident of history — but a substitutionary sacrifice planned from eternity. How does each of these alternative views fall short of explaining what the New Testament actually claims?

2.The concept of substitution — that Christ took the place of sinners and bore in himself the judgment they deserved — is central to Stott's account. In plain terms, what does this mean? How does Stott use Isaiah 53 ('the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all') to illuminate it?

3.Stott addresses the question of why God could not simply forgive sin without the cross — why punishment was necessary at all. His answer involves the nature of God's justice and holiness. In your own words, how would you explain why forgiveness without atonement would compromise God's character?

1.Stott explains that the resurrection is not merely evidence for Christ's identity (as in Part One) but also a crucial component of our salvation — Romans 4:25 says he 'was raised for our justification.' Why is the resurrection necessary for salvation, not just for proof? What would be missing if Christ had died but not risen?

2.Stott describes salvation in several dimensions: forgiveness of sins, adoption into God's family, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the promise of ultimate resurrection. Which of these aspects of salvation is most meaningful to you personally — and which do you tend to underemphasize or overlook?

3.Stott emphasizes that the risen Christ is not simply an inspiration from the past but a living Lord who is presently active — interceding for believers (Hebrews 7:25), present through his Spirit, and one day returning. How does the living, ongoing nature of Christ's work change the way you pray, worship, and face difficulty?

1.Stott is emphatic that people must count the cost before committing to Christ — he does not want superficial or sentimental decisions. What, specifically, does he identify as the cost of following Jesus? Why do you think he takes such care to be honest about difficulty rather than making the appeal as attractive as possible?

2.Stott describes what he calls 'nominal Christianity' — the widespread phenomenon of people who call themselves Christians but have never genuinely committed their lives to Christ. What distinguishes nominal Christianity from the real thing? Is this distinction fair, or does it risk producing unhelpful anxiety?

3.Stott calls for repentance and faith as the two sides of a genuine response to Christ — repentance meaning a genuine turning from self-rule, and faith meaning an active trust in and commitment to Christ. How are these two different from simply feeling sorry for past mistakes, or simply believing facts about Jesus?

1.Stott's book is built on a deliberate four-part structure: who Christ is, what humanity's problem is, what Christ did about it, and how we should respond. Now that you have seen the whole, how does each part depend on the others? What happens to the argument if any one part is removed or weakened?

2.Which chapter or section of the book was most impactful for you personally — and why? Was it a new idea, a familiar idea made fresh, a personal challenge, or an intellectual difficulty resolved?

3.Stott opens with the claim: 'If Jesus was not God in human flesh, Christianity is exploded.' Having worked through the entire book, how would you now respond to that statement? Do you find it more or less convincing than when you began? What, if anything, has shifted in your thinking?