A question about differences

[GraceSeeker]

ok I got another question,Do you have to believe that it is possible to apostatize(i.e be truly saved and born again and reject/leave Christ) to be methodist or could you reject that form of apostasy?

The United Methodist Church is NOT a confessional church. That means that you don't have to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs to be a member. The vows you take on joining the UMC are pretty simple:
1) Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?
2) Do you accept the freedom and power God gives you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?
3) Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?
4) According to the grace given to you, will you remain a faithful member of Christ's holy church and serve as Christ's representative in the world?


You'll notice, these questions are more about behaviors than beliefs. That's because we are a pluralistic church, with people from a wide diversity of backgrounds and even a diversity of beliefs -- all Christians, but every shape and form of Christianity from liberal to conservative and every thing in between. As a group we are decidedly Arminian, but you'll find United Methodists that talk like 5-point Calvinists and we welcome them too. If you don't happen to believe that people can backslide, among Methodists you'll be in the minority, but you'll still be accepted. What is important to us is how you actually practice your faith even more than the details of it.

 

[preacherinblack]

The United Methodist Church is NOT a confessional church. That means that you don't have to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs to be a member. The vows you take on joining the UMC are pretty simple:
1) Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?
2) Do you accept the freedom ad power God give you to resist evil, injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?
3) Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Savior, put your whole trust in his grace, and promise to serve him as your Lord, in union with the church which Christ has opened to people of all ages, nations, and races?
4) According to the grace given to you, will you remain a faithful member of Christ's holy church and serve as Christ's representative in the world?


You'll notice, these question are more about behaviors than beliefs. That's because we are a pluralistic church, with people from a wide diversity of backgrounds and even a diversity of beliefs -- all Christian, but every shape and form of Christianity from liberal to conservative and every thing in between. As a group we are decidedly Arminian, but you'll find United Methodists that talk like 5-point Calvinists and we welcome them too. If you don't happen to believe that people can backslide, among Methodists you'll be in the minority, but you'll still be accepted. What is important to us is how you actually practice your faith even more than the details of it.

Ok that's pretty neat thanks for the answer I think that is pretty awesome.

 

[circuitrider]

Just one addition to GraceSeeker's post.

As part of joining a UM church would be asked to support your church with "your prayers, your presence, your gifts, your service, and your witness."

As Graceseeker said, mostly "doing" and living out the faith rather than sets of doctrines.

 

[Maid Marie]

Just one addition to GraceSeeker's post.

As part of joining a UM church would be asked to support your church with "your prayers, your presence, your gifts, your service, and your witness."

As Graceseeker said, mostly "doing" and living out the faith rather than sets of doctrines.

Amen...love this.

 

[skypair]

Are there any fundamentalists in the UMC? and what would a fundamentalist be?Also Qyot27 could I send you questions view pm(Personal message )?

Fundamentalism is frowned upon in Wesleyan Methodism per "United Methodist Beliefs" by Wm. Willimon. It goes against their notion of creating doctrine by melding scripture, tradition, experience, and reason.

They are pretty good a practicing personal holiness but this bleeds over in to politics so that they get involved in environment, civil rights, welfare, etc. In the North this is more seen than in the South.

skypair

 

[GraceSeeker]

Fundamentalism is frowned upon in Wesleyan Methodism per "United Methodist Beliefs" by Wm. Willimon. It goes against their notion of creating doctrine by melding scripture, tradition, experience, and reason.

They are pretty good a practicing personal holiness but this bleeds over in to politics so that they get involved in environment, civil rights, welfare, etc. In the North this is more seen than in the South.

skypair

Or another way of putting this is that when Jesus decides between the sheep and the goats, the United Methodists (at least the active ones) will be among those who learn that in doing for the least of these they have been in ministry with Christ all along. While the Southern Baptists may be surprised to learn that not even the best (at least in their minds) theology means anything without praxis.

 

[circuitrider]

Wesley said that there was no personal holiness without social holiness.

 

[HoganWynne]

Wesley said that there was no personal holiness without social holiness.

Awesome.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You've gotten some great answers so far. I too was raised Southern Baptist; and now I'm a United Methodist Pastor. I'm going to be fairly frank and candid here; I don't mean to offend, or to criticize. But honestly is important, right? So here's what "drove me to Methodism"

1) Science. This isn't every Southern Baptist Church, but it's a LOT where I live. Part of the Biblical literalism that has sprung about in recent years is this need to make sure that EVERY. ASPECT. of the Bible is taken literally. So thanks to some funky math and scrutinizing the Bible with a literal (literal of the English translation that is) lens, we've decided that the earth is 6,000 (or maybe 10,000) years old and was created in it's present form. I believe God created the earth; and that it probably was a process that started 14.5 billion years ago (unless we learn something new) and that humans took billions of years to get here. Not only does Methodism not reject science, but historically it has been a huge force in educating. Some of Americas first public schools were established by Methodists. As a well-known United Methodist Author, Adam Hamilton, often puts it; "You don't have to check your brain at the door"

2) I like being able to admit that we don't know everything. That we can always be learning about God and about the Bible. I like that I no longer hear "It's clear" and "The Bible says exactly", but instead "This is the best way I've come to understand God's will in this situation". That doesn't mean UM's are like Unitarian Universalists in that anything goes; but it does mean there's wiggle room. And I like that. I like it because it's honest; because we're all different. When I can admit I'm unsure; and not just be told I'm "wrong", I can learn.

3) Sacraments. Southern Baptists consider Baptism and Communion to be just ordinances, symbols. To me, they are so much more special than that. They are acts of God on earth, modern day miracles; each and every time. While I don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are literally turned into the Body and Blood of Christ); I do believe Christ is actually present in and around the elements, and that something extraordinary happens at Baptism and Communion. And I also like knowing that nobody can be denied a place at Christ's table.

4) Connectionalism. Frankly, for centuries the Christian church worked in a system of connectionalism. The church was connected, it's clergy were sent, and it's people learned together. Southern Baptists practice autonomy, each church governs itself. Even voting in it's own members; and if the Pastor says something they don't like, they can fire him (and in this context, yes, 'him'. For United Methodists, it could be 'him' or 'her'!) Just this morning I met with 9 other Clergy in my area and my District Superintendant and we talked about the issues in our community. And the church I serve I knew nothing about; but the Bishop and the Cabinet did, and they knew me; and they knew I fit that church. And so I was sent, and it's been a great fit, and we're doing great work.

 

[skypair]

Or another way of putting this is that when Jesus decides between the sheep and the goats, the United Methodists (at least the active ones) will be among those who learn that in doing for the least of these they have been in ministry with Christ all along. While the Southern Baptists may be surprised to learn that not even the best (at least in their minds) theology means anything without praxis.

Yeah, you could say that. There is only one doctrine that matters and that is the doctrine of salvation. If one has repented surrendering one's will and life to God, then it is God who will lead into all truth, Jn 16:13 — not the church.

In fact, I have recently come to this discovery: The reason we have so many denominations and churches is that people are more committed to church than to Christ. Since I've left the SBC church and been involved with an FUMC men's fellowship, I've come to understand God and Christ so much more than when I was hearing only one version! I've learned, that is, to go the the Bible for the truth .. not to the church.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Wesley said that there was no personal holiness without social holiness.

I like what David said better. "Worship God in the beauty of holiness." Do you know that holiness — doing things right in all that you do — is beautiful not only to God but to others? I surmise that Methodists would love to get a handle on this verse! God is glorified before men when we upstanding, godly men in all that we do — so that is how we should worship Him throughout our lives.

skypair

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Yeah, you could say that. There is only one doctrine that matters and that is the doctrine of salvation. If one has repented surrendering one's will and life to God, then it is God who will lead into all truth, Jn 16:13 — not the church.

In fact, I have recently come to this discovery: The reason we have so many denominations and churches is that people are more committed to church than to Christ. Since I've left the SBC church and been involved with an FUMC men's fellowship, I've come to understand God and Christ so much more than when I was hearing only one version! I've learned, that is, to go the the Bible for the truth .. not to the church.

skypair

Christ himself, along with the apostles; established the church at Pentecost. It IS significant, and important. And the Bible is not a simple book, and those who treat it simply I think really miss out on it's authority and majesty.

 

[skypair]

1) … So thanks to some funky math and scrutinizing the Bible with a literal (literal of the English translation that is) lens, we've decided that the earth is 6,000 (or maybe 10,000) years old and was created in it's present form. ... As a well-known United Methodist Author, Adam Hamilton, often puts it; "You don't have to check your brain at the door"

I believe that the purpose of Genesis was to establish the beginning of the "kingdom of heaven" on the earth. Perhaps we could say the first thing that God had to do with it as we know it. Sure, the days of creation could have been "as a 1000 years." But the days of creation also tell us that after 6000 years, God will rest — will establish the eternal kingdom (New Heavens, New Earth) on this planet. That is the purpose of the Bible — to describe that.

2) I like being able to admit that we don't know everything. That we can always be learning about God and about the Bible. I like that I no longer hear "It's clear" and "The Bible says exactly", but instead "This is the best way I've come to understand God's will in this situation".

We should always do that, Ro.. 1Cor 14:29-32. But is ought always be from scripture. We ought never say that human reason, human tradition, and human experience tfump God's word.

but it does mean there's wiggle room. And I like that. I like it because it's honest; because we're all different. When I can admit I'm unsure; and not just be told I'm "wrong", I can learn.

Know what "wiggle room" is? It's human rationalization. Now to say that we just don't understand it as God presents it is honest. But to say, for instance, the Paul didn't mean that women shouldn't speak in church — that it is OK for them to have authority over men in the teaching of scripture — is what I sense you mean by "wiggle room."

3) Sacraments. To me, they are so much more special than [ordinances]. They are acts of God on earth, modern day miracles; each and every time. While I don't subscribe to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are literally turned into the Body and Blood of Christ); I do believe Christ is actually present in and around the elements, and that something extraordinary happens at Baptism and Communion. And I also like knowing that nobody can be denied a place at Christ's table.[/quote]
Which brings this to mind: If people don't have to be worthy of communion (1Cor 11:27), do they have to be worthy of baptism? Aren't both of these meant to be partaken of by saved believers only? Why would the lost "do this in remembrance of Me?" Wouldn't they, rather, be eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves (11:29)? Would you call that a modern day miracle of God like the Catholics do?

4) Connectionalism. Frankly, for centuries the Christian church worked in a system of connectionalism. The church was connected, it's clergy were sent, and it's people learned together. Southern Baptists practice autonomy, each church governs itself. Even voting in it's own members; and if the Pastor says something they don't like, they can fire him (and in this context, yes, 'him'. For United Methodists, it could be 'him' or 'her'!) Just this morning I met with 9 other Clergy in my area and my District Superintendant and we talked about the issues in our community. And the church I serve I knew nothing about; but the Bishop and the Cabinet did, and they knew me; and they knew I fit that church. And so I was sent, and it's been a great fit, and we're doing great work.

It may be hard to understand but the model you like is called "sacral society" — where government of the people connects to the religion of the people. It is, indeed, the paradigm for the early church taken from OT Judaism and then the RCC/Holy Roman Empire. BTW, the SBC has adopted it, too, and so will the coming One World Church.

But the NT paradigm never really was practiced in Christianity until Philadelphia — the church (Rev 3 — little strength) and the nation (Colonial USA). The NT model is "composite society" where state and religion are separate. The state/governing body does not tell the church how to practice its faith (Nicolaitanism) nor does religion command government. Reason? Same as 1Cor 11:9 — "that they which are approved [of God] may be made manifest among you." You know about the "dying church," right? What denominations would those be?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Christ himself, along with the apostles; established the church at Pentecost. It IS significant, and important. And the Bible is not a simple book, and those who treat it simply I think really miss out on it's authority and majesty.

Yeah, I should have said that I still find learning and comfort in the spiritual body of Christ that is in most churches — just not in the physical denomination/church, their doctrines and teachings.

skypair

 

[circuitrider]

I believe that the purpose of Genesis was to establish the beginning of the "kingdom of heaven" on the earth. Perhaps we could say the first thing that God had to do with it as we know it. Sure, the days of creation could have been "as a 1000 years." But the days of creation also tell us that after 6000 years, God will rest — will establish the eternal kingdom (New Heavens, New Earth) on this planet. That is the purpose of the Bible — to describe that.

The earth is several billions of years old. So you are obviously misunderstanding some Biblical symbolism. The New Heaven and New Earth are yet to be established.

We should always do that, Ro.. 1Cor 14:29-32. But is ought always be from scripture. We ought never say that human reason, human tradition, and human experience tfump God's word.


Know what "wiggle room" is? It's human rationalization. Now to say that we just don't understand it as God presents it is honest. But to say, for instance, the Paul didn't mean that women shouldn't speak in church — that it is OK for them to have authority over men in the teaching of scripture — is what I sense you mean by "wiggle room."

You can't understand the Bible with out a knowledge of Biblical history, history of the early Church, what the Church has done since the writing of the scriptures, etc. Without tradition, reason, and experience you cannot interpret scripture.

Which brings this to mind: If people don't have to be worthy of communion (1Cor 11:27), do they have to be worthy of baptism? Aren't both of these meant to be partaken of by saved believers only? Why would the lost "do this in remembrance of Me?" Wouldn't they, rather, be eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves (11:29)? Would you call that a modern day miracle of God like the Catholics do?

No one is ever worthy Skypair. We receive the sacraments as gifts from God by God's grace. The Bible says not to eat and drink "unworthily." That means in an unworthy manor in modern English. (Problem with reading the KJV). In other words we are admonished to take the sacraments seriously.

United Methodists believe God is present in our taking of communion. We don't believe that the bread and cup turn into the body and blood of Christ as in the doctrine of transubstantiation believed by the RCC.

It may be hard to understand but the model you like is called "sacral society"....

There are quite a few theologically trained people in this forum. So are disagreement with your views likely isn't do to a lack of understanding theology but just not agreeing with you.

But the NT paradigm never really was practiced in Christianity until Philadelphia — the church (Rev 3 — little strength) and the nation (Colonial USA). The NT model is "composite society" where state and religion are separate. The state/governing body does not tell the church how to practice its faith (Nicolaitanism) nor does religion command government. Reason? Same as 1Cor 11:9 — "that they which are approved [of God] may be made manifest among you." You know about the "dying church," right? What denominations would those be?

The above makes no theological sense to me Skypair so I don't know what to say about it. It seems to be a novel interpretation of the Revelation which I've never heard anyone else subscribe to. While I church and state separation, it isn't found in the Bible.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'm going to write more momentarily but one that that always seems to need to be pointed out is that the quadrilateral does NOT trump scripture. While United Methodists maintain a high view of the authority of scripture we are not literalists or inerrantist. That theology is a 19th century idealism that was really born out of "how can we become more Christian than the other Christians". Muslims and Mormons believe scripture is God-dictated and literal. Christians are unique in understanding our holy book to be God and Holy Spirit inspired through the eyes of key eye witnesses, important and auhoratative, containing the knowledge necessary for salvation; but not directly dictated by God and not meant to be literal or inerrant. That was the understanding of Christians for centuries, until the modern idea of literalism came about. Literalism also breeds the "6000 year old earth" that frankly I just find ludicrous.

The other arms of the quadrilateral, including reason tradition and experience, are not meant to trump or overwrite scripture. They are there to help us understand scripture and ultimately, God. They uplift scripture, and help us increase our view of scripture.

Frankly, and I know this will ruffle feathers but, bible literalism is a very low view of scripture. Because it says it's a simple book that simple human minds can simply understand. And that God is a simple God without complexities.

The comments are appreciate sky pair. But just as an FYI, issues like Bible Literalism, young earth creationism, and other theologies are the antithesis of Wesleyan Methodism. It doesn't mean you aren't allowed to have those views; but those are essentially foregone conclusions for those called Methodists. It would be akin to me going to a Baptist church and telling them that the Bible is just a storybook or to a Catholic Church and telling them that the Pope is the antichrist. There are issues debated among our many traditions but there are also issues that our traditions are firm on, and frankly aren't up for discussion. So your perspective is welcome, nobody is asking you to change it (I'd like you to pray about it though) but know that the ideology you're presenting is very incompatible with what we believe, so likely you're debating a brick wall here. (And that's not a criticism, just s friendly FYI)

 

[circuitrider]

Good points RomansFiveEight!

United Methodists believe not in Sola Scriptura but Prima Scriptura. Our Discipline says the Bible is our primary source for our theology, not our only source.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Good points RomansFiveEight!

United Methodists believe not in Sola Scriptura but Prima Scriptura. Our Discipline says the Bible is our primary source for our theology, not our only source.

I think the sola scriptura, literalism crowd is being earnest in their attempt to know God. The Bible is "God's Word" right? (Actually, Jesus is the Word of God; but that's for another topic). But what they are doing without their own realizing is watering it down. They think they are being 'More Christian' and 'More Biblical' by rejecting sources that aren't scripture (at one time none of the scripture was scripture! At one point Romans was just a letter from a well-known religious leader to a church.) By rejecting what Christianity has done for hundreds of years they are simplifying and watering down the Gospel.

What's worse is, they aren't actually interpreting or understanding the Bible at all. Rather, it becomes about proof-texting certain theologies. Without realizing it, that crowd morphs into a theology of 'begin with a conclusion, and then find the scripture to defend it'. They begin with whatever conclusion they've been taught; and they find some out-of-context scripture that somehow defends it. That's no way to treat the Bible, or God.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I believe that the purpose of Genesis was to establish the beginning of the "kingdom of heaven" on the earth. Perhaps we could say the first thing that God had to do with it as we know it. Sure, the days of creation could have been "as a 1000 years." But the days of creation also tell us that after 6000 years, God will rest — will establish the eternal kingdom (New Heavens, New Earth) on this planet. That is the purpose of the Bible — to describe that.

I'm not a dispensationalist, so there are some parts of this post that I wouldn't be in agreement with, but I want to affirm what I think is a real key point you pick-up on here. The purpose of Genesis (not the book by that name, but the act of genesis, creating the world) was God creating a world in which he would reign and his will would be done. And while God could have created a world of automatons he instead chose to create a world in which free will existed, so that people have to exercise their own human will to submit to his divine will. God does not force himself upon us, but allows us to choose "not my will, but thy will be done."

However, once our spiritual ancestors (Adam and Eve) choose to supplant God's will with their own, and act as if they were in charge of their own lives (i.e. to assume God's rightful place) we've all inherited the consequences of living in a fallen world. Jesus comes to effect a reconciliation for fallen humanity with God. His life serves as a redemptive act reconnecting the broken link between God and humanity. When he sends his own Holy Spirit to be present in the lives of believers he effects a restoration sufficient that we are actually termed to be born again -- i.e. we experience a re-genesis or regeneration of our life in Christ so that we are seen as a new creation.

Because of the presence of the living Christ made known through his Holy Spirit, we find ourselves in a situation were we are spiritual already a part of the Kingdom, while yet living with our feet still firmly planted in the world.

In the end, God will not save us from this earth, rather God will recreate not just believers but the entire heaven and earth, and the New Jerusalem will descend as God once again makes his habitation on earth with men just as the Bible describes as once being true in Eden.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I'm not a dispensationalist, so there are some parts of this post that I wouldn't be in agreement with, but I want to affirm what I think is a real key point you pick-up on here. The purpose of Genesis (not the book by that name, but the act of genesis, creating the world) was God creating a world in which he would reign and his will would be done. And while God could have created a world of automatons he instead chose to create a world in which free will existed, so that people have to exercise their own human will to submit to his divine will. God does not force himself upon us, but allows us to choose "not my will, but thy will be done."

However, once our spiritual ancestors (Adam and Eve) choose to supplant God's will with their own, and act as if they were in charge of their own lives (i.e. to assume God's rightful place) we've all inherited the consequences of living in a fallen world. Jesus comes to effect a reconciliation for fallen humanity with God. His life serves as a redemptive act reconnecting the broken link between God and humanity. When he sends his own Holy Spirit to be present in the lives of believers he effects a restoration sufficient that we are actually termed to be born again -- i.e. we experience a re-genesis or regeneration of our life in Christ so that we are seen as a new creation.

Because of the presence of the living Christ made known through his Holy Spirit, we find ourselves in a situation were we are spiritual already a part of the Kingdom, while yet living with our feet still firmly planted in the world.

In the end, God will not save us from this earth, rather God will recreate not just believers but the entire heaven and earth, and the New Jerusalem will descend as God once again makes his habitation on earth with men just as the Bible describes as once being true in Eden.

I always appreciate the way you are able to articulate your theology.

And, naturally, I wholeheartedly agree. The purpose of Genesis (the book) is not a lecture on history. It was never MEANT to be taken literally. It's purpose was to establish God's authority as creator, and sole authority, of earth and the universe.

As far as "one day is like 1000 years", remember that's New Testament, 2 Peter. And it, too, was illustration. A metaphor. Not literal. The author of 2 Peter was reminding us that Jesus' second coming wasn't something we were supposed to sit around and wait for, the reason it hadn't happened already was we were being given an opportunity to do God's work here on earth. Life is meant to be lived, not waited-through. The author was reminding us Time isn't relative to God; and he doesn't mind giving us plenty of time to do what we're supposed to do.

There's simply no good reason to believe the earth is 6000 years old created in a week. It doesn't lend to higher scriptural authority, actually it retracts scriptural authority by taking metaphors and imagery and saying what was a beautiful image establishing God's authority over the universe is instead a simple literal account of how God created the universe.