Early methodist Eucharist (how did Wesley teach the Lords super)

[ihavefoundgod951]

I am not a methodist, I consider myself non denominational because I have not found a Denomination that fits yet.

But I popped into a methodist church this evening and it was communion, the pastor was a lovely lady, she preached about the many different ways to take communion in different denominations from Catholic and Anglican,methodist ect

And also what it means to the people of those different denominations.

Some believe it is the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus

She said she herself see's the Lords supper as symbolic
She prepared the sacrament on a table and gave it to us as we were sat down, it was all rather informal.


But I noticed at the back of the room there was an alter and a place for kneeling down (asume a place to prepare and take the communion)

So I take from this this is not the way communion has always been taken at this church.

My question is how did John Wesley like his followers to take communion? And what would he make of the communion I described.

Thanks and God bless

 

[Albion]

The official position of the Methodist churches is, I believe, the same as that of the Anglican church from which they came--Real Presence but not Transubstantiation. If that's correct, this pastor's explanation of her own view of the sacrament is at odds with it.

The distribution of the communion elements is done in several ways, again depending upon the particular Methodist church. It may be that in this particular congregation, there was a switch from the older style to the one you describe, but that's just a guess.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Wesley's theology seems to have been focussed primarily on soteriology. Hence, most of his efforts seem to have been directed at establishing a divide with George Whitefield and his Methodist branch, which was Calvnistic in its soteriology. Wesley seems to have been rather silent regarding sacraments in general, going along with eighteenth-century Anglican views on the matter. Current United Methodist beliefs seem to also be rather ambivalent. Thus, I am not surprised that they have adopted more of a Zwinglian view of the communion as a memorial and not a sacrament. There are some United Methodist ministers who have moved more toward the sacramental view. The sacraments in United Methodism are not a controversial topic at present. Most controversial seems to be the ordination of homosexuals.

 

[MikeGlosterIII]

I attend a Wesleyan Church. On the first Sunday of each month, we have communion. It is open to all believers who wish to partake. While our Pastor says little about its significance, he does point out from Scripture it is an important part of Christian life, and that we should be at peace with our fellow man ( and woman ), in order to join in the Sacrament. We all go to the front of the church as a congregation, and take our saltine cracker and cranberry juice. We clearly see it as a remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

 

[Thursday]

I am not a methodist, I consider myself non denominational because I have not found a Denomination that fits yet.

But I popped into a methodist church this evening and it was communion, the pastor was a lovely lady, she preached about the many different ways to take communion in different denominations from Catholic and Anglican,methodist ect

And also what it means to the people of those different denominations.

Some believe it is the actual body and blood of the Lord Jesus

She said she herself see's the Lords supper as symbolic
She prepared the sacrament on a table and gave it to us as we were sat down, it was all rather informal.


But I noticed at the back of the room there was an alter and a place for kneeling down (asume a place to prepare and take the communion)

So I take from this this is not the way communion has always been taken at this church.

My question is how did John Wesley like his followers to take communion? And what would he make of the communion I described.

Thanks and God bless

Have you studied the early Christian Church?

If not, I recommend it. I think you'll find it opening your mind to the claims of the Catholic Church.

I'm a former Methodist who is now Catholic.

 

[Albion]

Have you studied the early Christian Church?

If not, I recommend it. I think you'll find it opening your mind to the claims of the Catholic Church.

In my case (and that of other CF members), it opened my mind to the false history that I'd been taught as a Catholic so, yes, I'd agree with the recommendation that such a study is worthwhile. In fact, we might ask "Why wouldn't anyone want the real facts before settling on his choice of churches?"

 

[Thursday]

In my case (and that of other CF members), it opened my mind to the false history that I'd been taught as a Catholic so, yes, I'd agree with the recommendation that such a study is worthwhile. In fact, we might ask "Why wouldn't anyone want the real facts before settling on his choice of churches?"

But you've already demonstrated multiple times your ignorance of history. You post things that aren't historically accurate. It's as if you get your history from a Jack Chick tract.

 

[Albion]

But you've already demonstrated multiple times your ignorance of history.

That's what people with a different version of history like to say to those who disagree with them, but I have several university degrees in history while you have....what, exactly, as credentials (if any)?

 

[Thursday]

That's what people with a different version of history like to say to those who disagree with them, but I have several university degrees in history while you have....what, exactly, as credentials (if any)?

You have proven your ignorance of history consistently. I don't know where you got your degrees, but it must have been protestant schools that whitewash history in order to promote a dogma.

Where did you get your degrees?

 

[Albion]

You have proven your ignorance of history consistently. I don't know where you got your degrees, but it must have been protestant schools that whitewash history in order to promote a dogma.

Where did you get your degrees?

Ohio State University. I don't recall it being a Protestant school that whitewashed history in order to promote a dogma.

And (for the third time), your own credentials in history are...what?

 

[Thursday]

Ohio State University.

Interesting. I would be surprised if Ohio State taught that the Catholic Church did not choose and canonize the books of the New Testament.

 

[Albion]

Interesting. I would be surprised if Ohio State taught that the Catholic Church did not choose and canonize the books of the New Testament.

On second thought, this non-answer doesn't deserve a reply.

 

[Thursday]

On second thought, this non-answer doesn't deserve a reply.

You are wrong about history. Don't blame it on OSU.

It's not their fault you are ignorant of Church history. I don't blame you for refusing to reply.