Chaso

[Chaso @FastChase]

@ChudThomist There is no eternal hell

[Chaso @FastChase]

@CatholicismF @XCkyro Uh yeah she's asleep

[Chaso @FastChase]

@CatholicismF @XCkyro Correct she's dead

[Chaso @FastChase]

@TribunusHammer @XCkyro Catholics all spouting the same tired appeal to authority that has been debunked 10 trillion times. The worst part is each one of you thinks you've come up with something novel.

[Chaso @FastChase]

@maninasuit0 @hneros13818 @redeemed_zoomer Not really

[Chaso @FastChase]

@OrthoPaulos Yeah that works. Appreciate the good faith discussion.

[Chaso @FastChase]

Right, I brought up supersessionalism because these ideas don't live in separate boxes. Once you make the Church the continuation of Israel, everything starts getting poured into the same theological blender. The Kingdom message, the Twelve, the New Covenant, Paul, justification, discipleship, judgment—you stir it all together and call it one thing. Then when Paul says, "to him that worketh not, but believeth," you immediately qualify it with passages about final judgment and obedience rather than letting Paul stand on his own feet. That's why I mentioned supersessionalism. Not as a random thing, but because I think it's the underlying hermeneutic behind the conclusion.

My question remains: if Paul believed our final acquittal rests upon our works, why does he hammer away at "to him that worketh not, but believeth" (Rom. 4:5), "justified by faith apart from works" (Rom. 3:28), "not by works of righteousness which we have done" (Titus 3:5), and "not according to our works" (2 Tim. 1:9)? I agree that believers do good works. The question is whether those works save them, justify them, or acquit them. Paul seems obsessed with separating salvation from works, not attaching salvation to works.

And then there's 1 Corinthians 3:15. The man's works are burned to ashes, yet he himself is saved. That's a very strange passage if final acquittal is hanging on the quality of our works.

[Chaso @FastChase]

I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to prove anymore. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying Romans 2 describes Spirit-circumcised believers who can do good through the power of the Spirit, while Romans 3 describes humanity under sin apart from the Spirit. Even if I grant that for the sake of argument, what does that prove? How does that get us to supersessionalism? I'm not seeing how this Romans 2 discussion actually advances your larger argument.

[Chaso @FastChase]

That would make sense if Paul had introduced Spirit indwelt believers in Romans 2, but he hasn't gotten there yet. In Romans 2 he's discussing Jews, Gentiles, law, conscience, and judgment. The Spirit empowered life doesn't become topic of discussion until much later. Reading Romans 8 back into Romans 2 is assuming the conclusion you're trying to prove. And even if Romans 2 does refer to Spirit enabled believers, Romans 3:20 still says "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified," which means their justification cannot ultimately be grounded in their law keeping.

[Chaso @FastChase]

If your reading is right, Paul spends Romans 2 telling us Gentiles will be acquitted by doing good, then spends Romans 3 telling us no one does good and no one is justified by works.
Paul's point is that Jews don't get a free pass because they have the Law. God judges impartially. If a Gentile fulfilled God's requirements, he'd be acquitted. The problem, as Paul immediately concludes, is that neither Jew nor Gentile actually does.

"There is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). "There is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. 3:12). "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Rom. 3:20).

[Chaso @FastChase]

@ThaBiggestDawg_ @elonmusk @joerogan @netanyahu

[Chaso @FastChase]

@BashlinCore @ThaBiggestDawg_ @ErickYbarra3 @C2Antiquity

[Chaso @FastChase]

@BashlinCore @ErickYbarra3 @C2Antiquity You need some new content my dude.

[Chaso @FastChase]

You're reading Romans 2 as though Paul stopped writing after verse 10.

Paul's point is that if glory, honor, and peace come through doing good, then who qualifies? By Romans 3 he answers: ----None are righteous, not one. That's the setup for justification apart from works -Rom. 3:20, 28

And "it was novel until the 1500s" isn't an argument. Truth isn't determined by how many bishops repeat something that's wrong for a thousand years.

[Chaso @FastChase]

@billswerski1985 Agreed!

[Chaso @FastChase]

@BashlinCore @ThaBiggestDawg_ @ErickYbarra3 @C2Antiquity I don't think you know what projection means haha

[Chaso @FastChase]

@ThaBiggestDawg_ @BashlinCore @ErickYbarra3 @C2Antiquity Lol get your mind out of the gutter my guy!

[Chaso @FastChase]

@billswerski1985 Well I'm a unitarian so that puts me square in the heretic category, which I'm totally fine with.

[Chaso @FastChase]

@BashlinCore @ErickYbarra3 @C2Antiquity I mean you're kind of a dufus so 16 seems about right. The fact that you immediately assume pedo when someone asks your age says a lot about your upbringing and presumably your priests.