Romans – Week 3 Discussion Part 2

June 6, 2026 • Episode Summary

Romans — Week 3 Discussion Part 2

In part two of the week three Romans Sermon Discussion, Michael Baun is joined by Pastors Caleb Fugate and Joel Maus to finish their deep dive into Romans 2. The conversation opens on Pharaoh’s hardened heart — drawing a sharp distinction between avoiding punishment and genuine repentance — before moving into a rich discussion on discernment, the danger of prophecy untethered from Scripture, and what it truly means to take the Lord’s name in vain. The group then examines God’s impartial judgment, drawing a surprising parallel between the deification of political figures and what happens when people lose God as their moral plumb line. The episode closes with Caleb presenting Anselm’s “infinite debt” argument to show why nothing short of the incarnation — 100% human, 100% divine — could ever resolve what humanity owes God.

Listen Now

Discussion Questions

1. Caleb and Michael draw a sharp distinction between Pharaoh not wanting to face punishment and actually repenting — noting that “not enjoying punishment is not the same as repentance.” Where in your own life have you confused relief from consequences with genuine heart change? What does true repentance look and feel like from the inside?
2. Caleb argues that attributing to God things he never said is a deeper violation of the third commandment than using his name as a casual expletive. How carefully do you filter what you attribute to God’s voice before sharing it with others — and what is the cost, to the person you’re speaking to and to your own credibility, when that attribution turns out to be wrong?
3. The group lands on the conviction that dangerous theology is usually close to correct — and that low biblical literacy leaves people unable to spot the gap. What is your current practice of intentional Bible reading, and how does it shape the way you evaluate what you hear from the platform, on social media, or in conversation?
4. Michael makes the case that when people stop viewing God as their impartial judge, they fill that vacuum with political figures or ideologies — and that this warps how they see themselves. Who or what is currently functioning as your primary plumb line for evaluating yourself and the world around you? How does restoring God to that role change the picture?
5. Caleb presents Anselm’s argument that every sin against an infinitely valuable God carries infinite debt — debt no finite human could ever repay — which is exactly why the incarnation required someone simultaneously 100% human and 100% divine. How does framing even “small” sins as carrying infinite debt change the weight you assign to them? And how does that weight make the cross feel different?