Lucas U. Curcio

In this episode I deal with the Roman Catholic objection against Sola Fide that Paul’s phrase, “works of the law” only refers to the Jewish identity markers such as circumcision and sabbath laws, and thus contra Protestantism, doesn’t mean that works aren’t included in our justification. youtu.be/WBhuXvpuVe4?si…

@more_amalek Why is that guy in a mask?

At the America First United conference, the panel debates Catholicism vs Protestantism. The Daft Punk member claims everything after Vatican II is “fake Catholicism.” An Asatru pagan then asks how they plan to deal with the vast majority of Christians who see them as heretical.

Greatly appreciated, Matthew!

True faith is not asking, "When I die, will I be resurrected?" True faith is asking, "When Jesus died, was He resurrected?" Romans 10:9, "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

@Colt45Savage 100%!

@MethodMinistry Wesley's notes on Titus, 3.5 and Roman. 6 should put to rest the idea that he taught a symbolic baptism.

Wesley: "Baptism washes away sins and is regenerative." Modern Wesleyans & Wesleyan scholars: "Nah, Wesley didn't teach it."

This is standard talk of those who reject his clear teaching on it; his treatise is his way of affirming and putting out there his view on it. Dr. Mark Olson (a Wesleyan scholar) also agrees. Additionally, his sermons on the new birth and the marks of the new birth affirm this, as well as his notes on John 3:5 and Acts 22:16. Watch this video where I also defended it, youtu.be/zxC9XKT1KIk?si…

You're treating the treatise as if it settles the issue, but Wesley doesn't speak with one voice on this. First, that treatise isn't coming out of nowhere, it's largely a reworking of his father's work. So appealing to it as if it represents John Wesley's settled, independent position already assumes too much. Second, when you actually read John Wesley's sermons, the pattern runs the other direction: - In The New Birth, the only argument tying baptism to regeneration comes from his hypothetical interlocutor, which he immediately qualifies and ultimately disconnects: "Be you baptized or unbaptized, you must be born again." - In The Scripture Way of Salvation, the new birth is received by faith, not tied to baptism. - In The Great Privilege of Those Born of God, assurance is grounded in present transformation, not a past rite. - In The Means of Grace (prayer, searching the Scriptures, the Lord's supper), baptism isn't even central in the way you'd expect if it were the moment of regeneration. (List not exhaustive) So quoting the treatise doesn't resolve the issue, it highlights a tension. If anything, Wesley repeatedly moves away from that framework in his own preaching and grounds the new birth in a present reality received by faith, not something automatically conferred in baptism. At best, the treatise reflects inherited high-church language. Wesley's preaching is where you see what he actually pressed and it's not baptismal regeneration.

In this episode I explain & defend the REAL Wesleyan view that baptism regenerates (1 Peter 3:21) from Wesley’s treatise on Baptism 👇 This is something that many Wesleyan scholars deny and don’t want to admit, but Wesley clearly taught it, and his treatise is definitive proof. 👇 youtu.be/TCUZGsue6mg?si…

@NickQuient @method_ministry I understand. But if he states "XYZ," then he taught, XYZ.

@MethodMinistry @method_ministry “Probably” is a specific philosophical term. It indicates very strong likelihood that he taught it. Like saying 95% certain.

@NickQuient @method_ministry There is no "probably." He taught it. Watch the video, I read directly from his treatise explicitly saying it. Read his sermons on the new birth and the marks of the new birth.

@MethodMinistry @method_ministry Wesley (probably) taught it, and he was wrong. Pretty simple.

@MizJChristian I have that Limited Atonement work on my reading list.

If you’re interested in exploring a different angle on this, I’d recommend From Heaven He Came and Sought Her; it’s a multi-author work that lays out the case in a more developed and readable way than most treatments, and it’s worth engaging even if you don’t end up agreeing with it.

The atonement of Christ made provision for everyone to be saved. It does not automatically apply it's benefits. Redemption Accomplished is not Redemption Applied.

@IndianaBrunner Under that definition you can justify and impose any act upon children and then retort to those who object that they’re “criticizing and causing needless division.” It’s really poor theology.

We don’t claim it is a biblical command. It is however a good way to “stir up one another to love and good works,” (Hebrews 10:24) Why criticize parents committed to raising their children to know and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ? Causing needless division among the body for clicks smh…

Baptist looking for a verse on infant dedication.

@realmikolson @freemarketeer1

@MethodMinistry @freemarketeer1 Okay okay I’m with ya there

Roman Catholic friends, Is justification a one-time, for all-time, declaration of righteousness by God, or an ongoing process that depends on our cooperation (good works)? Follow-up question: If it’s an ongoing process, what is the standard God uses to determine if someone has done ‘enough’ good works to be justified? How can a person have certainty they’re in ‘good-standing’ with God (righteous—‘a state of grace,’ as Rome teaches)? Be specific.