How do Methodists differ from Baptists?

[BryanW92]

The reason I say this is to encourage the OP... you don't have to agree on every point of Methodist doctrine in order to be a Methodist. Open hearts, open minds, open doors.

For better or worse, that is entirely true.

 

[circuitrider]

Hi guys, not to muddy the water, but...

I attend a UMC, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Weslyan view of prevenient grace, saving grace, and sanctifying grace. I do agree that the standard Baptist view of "once saved always saved" (WSAS) is lacking. But I do believe in eternal security, and I don't believe that baptism is a means of grace.

The reason I say this is to encourage the OP... you don't have to agree on every point of Methodist doctrine in order to be a Methodist. Open hearts, open minds, open doors.

Sorry but, if don't believe the sacraments are a means of grace your theology isn't Methodist despite your membership, and your doctrinal views are only partially Wesleyan in regards to grace.

That isn't intended as a slam. But the sacraments being a means of grace is a HUGE part of Wesleyan theology. So your disagreeing with it isn't a minor doctrinal difference but instead a major disagreement with Methodist theology that invalidates any purpose for baptism and communion in Methodist doctrine.

Look up John Wesley's sermon "The Means of Grace" and take a read. Or John Wesley's "The Duty of Constant Communion" for starters. You might also want to read "This Holy Mystery" and "By Water and the Spirit" the official doctrines of the Church on communion and baptism.

"Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" isn't an invitation to be a Methodist who doesn't believe in United Methodist doctrine. That isn't what it is about.

Can I ask what you mean by "eternal security" as about from Once Saved Always Saved? They seem to me to be the same thing.

 

[godenver1]

I understand. I just try to watch putting Methodist baptismal theology in Baptist terms. Otherwise the next question is, "then why do you baptize infants at all?" If grace isn't involved in baptism then infant baptism doesn't make a lot of sense.

In a sense everything we do in a young person's life from baptism, to Sunday School, to Bible teaching, preaching, confirmation, etc. leads them to salvation because it gives them the grace and the information they need to accept Christ. No one accepts Christ in isolation. They received the gospel somewhere. "How shall they believe unless they hear...." Rom. 10

Baptists are really bad about acting as if God wasn't working in their life until the very moment they were justified. Where as we believe God has been working in our lives every moment from our birth.

Also Baptists tend to believe that God's work is done and even complete at their justification where we teach that God continues to work in our lives to sanctify us and make us holy. It is why I see United Methodist soteriology as much more complete than most Baptist soteriology that only focuses on the moment of justification.

Wesley saw justification (or getting saved) as only the front door of the house of the Christian life. Sanctification is the rest of the house.

It may sound a little strange coming from a Baptists-but at the moment I'm indifferent to infant baptism. I'm getting baptised in a few weeks and am being taught that immersion etc. is biblical method, but I don't think I'd leave a church because they baptise infants.

I'll leave it between the parents and God on that one.

 

[godenver1]

And yes, Bryanw92- I was referring to 'baptismal regeneration'. Thank you all for answers!

 

[circuitrider]

It may sound a little strange coming from a Baptists-but at the moment I'm indifferent to infant baptism. I'm getting baptised in a few weeks and am being taught that immersion etc. is biblical method, but I don't think I'd leave a church because they baptise infants.

I'll leave it between the parents and God on that one.

I get that.

From my perspective that idea of baptism by John the baptizer may have come from the ritual washing of the Essenes. So I don't he was most concerned about if someone went all under the water or not the way some Baptists think. He was more concerned about water symbolizing repentance. It is only later in the later formation of the Baptist movement in the 1640s or so that immersion started to become a big deal.

 

[food4thought]

Sorry but, if don't believe the sacraments are a means of grace your theology isn't Methodist despite your membership, and your doctrinal views are only partially Wesleyan in regards to grace.

That isn't intended as a slam. But the sacraments being a means of grace is a HUGE part of Wesleyan theology. So your disagreeing with it isn't a minor doctrinal difference but instead a major disagreement with Methodist theology that invalidates any purpose for baptism and communion in Methodist doctrine.

Look up John Wesley's sermon "The Means of Grace" and take a read. Or John Wesley's "The Duty of Constant Communion" for starters. You might also want to read "This Holy Mystery" and "By Water and the Spirit" the official doctrines of the Church on communion and baptism.

"Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" isn't an invitation to be a Methodist who doesn't believe in United Methodist doctrine. That isn't what it is about.

Can I ask what you mean by "eternal security" as about from Once Saved Always Saved? They seem to me to be the same thing.

I take no offense, no worries there. I am well aware that communion and baptism are considered a means of grace by Methodists. Honestly, I don't think the Bible is entirely clear on those issues, though. I am perfectly open to being convinced if they are clearly portrayed that way, since I don't think I've ever done a serious study on those topics (but we can start a new thread for that if you'd like to discuss it... I don't want to totally derail this one). I truly believe in keeping the main things the main things, though, and I don't think God is going to condemn us because of how exactly we understood those things when we stand before Him (although I am sure He will indeed correct me if I'm wrong). It is enough, I believe, that we trust in Him fully for our salvation and obey Him in faith regarding those things He clearly commanded us to do.

I am not a member of the church, I am a regular attendee though. I go there because my parents attend there, I am basically Arminian in my views, it is close, and the fellowship there is good. I am not even sure if a church exists that I agree with on everything, although I am probably closest to the Calvary Chapel movement (which is the faith icon I use). I post here because you are a good group of people, I attend a UMC, and because I do know the basics of Methodist theology.

OSAS, the way I understand it, means you pray a prayer of faith and you're sealed by the Holy Spirit forever, regardless of how you respond to the Holy Spirit, grow in faith and grace, or even if you completely quench the Spirit and live like a demon. It is also closely related to predestination as Calvinists interpret it. I completely reject that. Of course, some would probably point to perseverance of the saints and say such a person was never truly saved.

To me, eternal security is for the believer. No matter how badly I sin, the Lord will forgive me if I truly repent and come back to Him. This is not a license to sin all I want and then repent on my deathbed! Sin hardens our hearts, warps our souls, and if we persist in it we will reject God in our heart and He will respect our choice and let us go. I don't know where the line is drawn, and I don't think God wants us to know where the line is drawn... otherwise we would have a tendency to walk right up to the line and live there. The Bible speaks of both our security as a believer (Romans 8:38-39 and elsewhere) and warns us that persistent habitual sin is not compatible with the Christian life (1st John 3:3-9 and elsewhere).

God bless;
Mike

EDIT------------
After further reflection and rereading what I wrote, I guess what I just described can't really be called eternal security. I am still in the process of learning and growing... sorry for any confusion.

 

[Maid Marie]

We are very much on the same page here. And as you say, some Methodists think the same thing because they have, one way or another, been infected with Calvinist theology which seems very common on Christian radio, TV, etc.

As do some Nazarenes. We call them "Baptarenes" . A few could even be called NINOS - Nazarene in Name Only because they are too much like Baptists or Mega Church thinkers.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

One of my biggest issues, if not the biggest, with OSAS; aside from the theology- is what it often means for evangelism.

So often people claim "salvations" like trophies, and go around trying to get people to pray a prayer and walk away smug cheering to their friends that they "saved someone" (doesn't Christ do the saving?). All the while they'll never make an attempt to nurture this person, probably never pray for them, and certainly won't encourage them to be a faithful and active part of a local church so they can grow in their faith. I once heard a man tell me that "Now that he has the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will take care of all that stuff". I commend his faith in the Spirit's ability to work; but I think it's a cheap way of ignoring our evangelistic duty in Christ.

That's certainly not all OSAS believers. But I think the theology of OSAS breeds that sort of thinking.

I frustrate a friend of mine, a "bible believing baptist" and firm OSAS thinker; who asks me constantly "Are you saved yet?" and I give him the most Wesleyan answer I can think of... "Workin' on it!"

For the record, I have a confidence and assurance in my own salvation. It is because of the assurance that I have a desire to become more Christ-like every day and work towards Holiness. That whole "Sanctifying Grace" thing and all! So my salvation is in fact a work in progress, even if I am confident that I will be with Christ in heaven, and it will be a work in progress until it is perfected in the presence of Christ in heaven!

I was baptized as an infant by my grandmother; a United Methodist Elder. Later, my family joined a Southern Baptist Church where I was told that infant Baptism was incorrect and that everyone who joined that local church needed to be baptized by my local church. My grandmother was quite bothered by it, I could tell, but didn't say much. I was told that I didn't understand Baptism when I was a baby and now that I'm older (was about 12 at the time), and I know what it is, I need to be baptized.

The irony? Now that I have a deeper, meaningful grasp of baptism as a sacrament and means of Grace (at 12 I don't think I knew what the word Sacrament meant). And now that I have rooted in myself a belief that God institutes the sacraments, and that Baptism is a mystery (the root of Sacrament) meant to be received as Grace, not understood and consented to like the terms of a car loan. Now that my faith has grown; I regret that second "baptism" and firmly believe; with all respect and love to my baptist brethren, that I was only Baptized once. It was among many motivators when I was called into the ministry that lead me to the UMC. Interestingly, there was a bit of an "intervention" as a number of Souther Baptist clergy, and members of my local church came to me concerned that I was "straying away from the Bible", all the while I felt like I was finally getting back to it!

I love my baptist brothers and sisters; especially their passion for evangelism. But I do think some of the things they hold most dear (the inerrancy of the Bible in the context of a literal understanding of a english translation with no provisions for colloquialism or contextual understanding; which some don't realize is not the same as the Inerrancy of God, etc.) are holding them back from actually following what the Bible teaches.

I think what is not being realized, is that not believing in literal Bible inerrancy is not some hippie-liberal understanding where we pick and choose the scriptures that fit our way of thinking. Actually; they tends to be the literalist approach! As a well known UMC author and Pastor, Adam Hamilton once said, referring to Jesus' mention that it was better to cut off a hand than to cause another to sin, (and I'm paraphrasing) "Would all of you who believe the Bible should be taken literally, please raise your stumps".

The fact is, nobody; NOBODY believes in a totally literal, inerrant Bible. Bring them scriptures about stoning a daughter for divorce or even passages where Jesus said he came only for the Jews and to bring salvation only to the Jews; and of course they'll have standard theological answers. The answers would probably be right. So why, then, can the same care not be given to OTHER passages? The reality is, if you believe the Bible has to be interpreted, studied, and understood; then you can no longer make it fit what you'd like for it to say. Instead, you are forced to live by what the Bible is actually intended to guide us to!

 

[circuitrider]

Good post John!

Once Saved Always Saved and the usual view of Calvinists about salvation being a one time event in your life that fixes your future are very problematic to Christian maturation, or what Wesleyan Christians call sanctification.

It encourages people to have a one time faith event (getting saved) which is the be all and end all of being a Christian. After "getting saved" then there is no real need to grow in grace and become a more mature Christian. Baptists and others do emphasize Christian maturity but it is in no way a part of their soteriology because in their theology getting into heaven is the ultimate goal of salvation and not a person growing into the likeness of Christ.

Yes they hope you will grow into the likeness of Christ but it isn't a part of the process of salvation as they understand it.

John Wesley strongly taught a doctrine of assurance. This doctrine teaches us that we can trust God for our salvation and that our salvation is always based on the love and grace of God that continues to work in our lives.

The difference is, IMHO, is that Calvinist (and Baptist theology) doesn't want a continued trust in God's love. It demands a contractual arrangement where on a certain day and time God made a contract with you to take you to heaven and now He has to carry that out no matter what you do.

I don't believe that really amounts to trusting in God's grace. Instead it places faith on the understanding of a one time salvific event. So it is the event of "getting saved" that your trust ends up being in rather than a life time of trusting the continued love of God in your life.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

=
The difference is, IMHO, is that Calvinist (and Baptist theology) doesn't want a continued trust in God's love. It demands a contractual arrangement where on a certain day and time God made a contract with you to take you to heaven and now He has to carry that out no matter what you do.

I don't believe that really amounts to trusting in God's grace. Instead it places faith on the understanding of a one time salvific event. So it is the event of "getting saved" that your trust ends up being in rather than a life time of trusting the continued love of God in your life.

Well said.

I have always had issues with things that put limits on God. As if God himself is bound by our earthly understandings. God can do whatever the heck God wants. God did not create us to serve us or to be a genie in a bottle, God created us to serve him as companions who worshipped him (not companions who are equal!) You pointed out the "contractual agreement" and that's an excellent way to put it. OSAS makes God a small God who does what we say; not a big, mighty, and all powerful eternal God who demands more from us than a single prayer. The beauty of Grace though is, what he demands from us is not the same for every person.

 

[circuitrider]

Well said.

I have always had issues with things that put limits on God. As if God himself is bound by our earthly understandings. God can do whatever the heck God wants. God did not create us to serve us or to be a genie in a bottle, God created us to serve him as companions who worshipped him (not companions who are equal!) You pointed out the "contractual agreement" and that's an excellent way to put it. OSAS makes God a small God who does what we say; not a big, mighty, and all powerful eternal God who demands more from us than a single prayer. The beauty of Grace though is, what he demands from us is not the same for every person.

And mostly what God is demanding of us is relationship and a desire to grow.

I preached this past Sunday out of 1 Cor 3 where Paul shares that he had only been able to feed the Corinthians milk because they weren't mature enough for solid food. As Christians we should never be satisfied with living our lives just on milk.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The difference is, IMHO, is that Calvinist (and Baptist theology) doesn't want a continued trust in God's love. It demands a contractual arrangement where on a certain day and time God made a contract with you to take you to heaven and now He has to carry that out no matter what you do.

And far too much of UM preaching and hymnody parallels this. We talk about how Jesus paid a price I could not pay; we sing of how "Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe". It is even in our funeral liturgy: "bring us at last with them into the joy of your home not made with human hands but eternal in the heavens."

"Eternal in the heavens?" Really? Have we torn Revelation 21 and 22 out of our Bibles? It seems like we can hardly wait for this life to be over and fly away to heaven where we will rest on some celestial shore. As many a preacher has noted, we are so busy trying to be fitted for heaven that we are of no earthly good. And that practice isn't something exclusive to the OSAS crowd.

 

[circuitrider]

And far too much of UM preaching and hymnody parallels this. We talk about how Jesus paid a price I could not pay; we sing of how "Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe". It is even in our funeral liturgy: "bring us at last with them into the joy of your home not made with human hands but eternal in the heavens."

"Eternal in the heavens?" Really? Have we torn Revelation 21 and 22 out of our Bibles? It seems like we can hardly wait for this life to be over and fly away to heaven where we will rest on some celestial shore. As many a preacher has noted, we are so busy trying to be fitted for heaven that we are of no earthly good. And that practice isn't something exclusive to the OSAS crowd.

True. We often think far too much about getting to heaving rather than serving God where we are.

As to the hymnody, I'm afraid we've been over effected by substitutionary models of atonement.

 

[food4thought]

True. We often think far too much about getting to heaving rather than serving God where we are.

As to the hymnody, I'm afraid we've been over effected by substitutionary models of atonement.

I have heard of other views of the atonement besides the substitutionary one, like Christus Victor, but I really don't understand them or know if they are well supported from a Biblical viewpoint. I think the substitutionary model has very solid support from the Bible, but acknowledge that it might not be the only thing going on in Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

What is the predominant view among Wesleyans? Does anyone have an online resource I could look into to better understand it?

Thanks in advance;
Mike

 

[GraceSeeker]

I have heard of other views of the atonement besides the substitutionary one, like Christus Victor, but I really don't understand them or know if they are well supported from a Biblical viewpoint. I think the substitutionary model has very solid support from the Bible, but acknowledge that it might not be the only thing going on in Christ's life, death, and resurrection.

What is the predominant view among Wesleyans? Does anyone have an online resource I could look into to better understand it?

Thanks in advance;
Mike

I don't have any surveys by which I can give you some sort of statistical analysis of what is the predominant view among Wesleyans. Antedoctally, I suspect that it is the substitutionary atonement model and, among the laity, probably even the penal substitutionary atonement theory.

What is worth noting is that though I believe one can make an argument for many different (I believe complimentary more than competing) models for the atonement from scripture, that it wasn't until Anselm that the concept of a substitutionary atonement was really put forth. Luther would later pick this up and champion it in his arguments with Rome which is why it is so well entrenched in Protestant thought. However, for the first 1500 years of Christendom, the more dominant way of discussing the atonement was what is known today under the name of the Christus Victor model (though that name wasn't given to it until much later).


If you want to study this some on your own here are some good resources:
The Atonement Debate: Papers from the London Symposium on the Theology of Atonement: Derek Tidball, David Hilborn, Justin Thacker: 9780310273394: Amazon.com: Books


Fortress Introduction to Salvation and the Cross: David A. Brondos: 9780800662165: Amazon.com: Books (I found this an excellent history on the development of different views regarding the atonement.)


Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement: Gustaf Aulen, A. G. Herbert: 9781592443307: Amazon.com: Books


Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision: N. T. Wright: 9780830838639: Amazon.com: Books (If you've ever read Wright and found him difficut, I still encourage you to read this book. I found it one of his easier reads.)

 

[circuitrider]

I personally prefer the Christus Victor model because the subtitutionary models seem to hinged on human understandings of law and judgement. It all seems to like a human court system rather than God's victory over sin and death.

 

[Qyöt27]

A combination of Christus Victor and the moral influence theory are commonly thought of as the predominant view for the first half of Church history in the West (along with the Ransom theory, which is the generally cited as the oldest view of the atonement). These views never went out of style among the Eastern Orthodox (likewise, substitutionary atonement never really caught on with the EO due to the Schism), and my guess is that that's part of what is contributing to the growing popularity of these views among some Patristically-minded Protestants now.

For the record, I tend to prefer the synthesis of Christus Victor and moral influence as well.



Various sources seem to point at Grotius' governmental theory of atonement as the commonly-held view in traditional Methodism. It's a branch of the substitutionary model (again, due to the East/West divide), but sees it as a singular, corporate sacrifice for the Church rather than penal substitution's dogpile of suffering. There were more points to it, of course, but I think that's the basic gist.

 

[Joykins]

And far too much of UM preaching and hymnody parallels this. We talk about how Jesus paid a price I could not pay; we sing of how "Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe". It is even in our funeral liturgy: "bring us at last with them into the joy of your home not made with human hands but eternal in the heavens."

"Eternal in the heavens?" Really? Have we torn Revelation 21 and 22 out of our Bibles? It seems like we can hardly wait for this life to be over and fly away to heaven where we will rest on some celestial shore. As many a preacher has noted, we are so busy trying to be fitted for heaven that we are of no earthly good. And that practice isn't something exclusive to the OSAS crowd.

Looking forward (even yearning for) the life of the world to come is reassurance for those who face suffering or the end of life. For those of us who are not--preaching is supposed to tell us to get off our duffs and help someone out already.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Excellent points made about life here on earth. Last fall in my sermon series I included a sermon about what we are supposed to do here. I simply reject the idea that this is a "temporary test", but in fact this life is a gift meant to be lived in the image of Christ!

 

[GraceSeeker]

Looking forward (even yearning for) the life of the world to come is reassurance for those who face suffering or the end of life. For those of us who are not--preaching is supposed to tell us to get off our duffs and help someone out already.

That's fine, Joykins, but the world to come (if I accept Revelation as true) is NOT "eternal in the heavens."

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them." (Revelation 21:1-3)
​