Methodists and Lutherans...differences and similarities?

Hey! I am coming out of Roman Catholicism into the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod). I am more convinced of the biblical basis of the Lutheran Church than other Protestant denominations, though I respect the love of the gospel in all other Protestant churches.

But I want to ask anyone here, what are the main differences in Methodist and Lutheran theology? Especially when it comes to the eucharist, baptism, etc.

NOTE: though I am asking for an explanation of differences, I want this to remain a thread rooted in Christian love and education. NO mudslinging on the other denomination, Lutheran or Methodist.

Well, both Lutherans and Methodists regard Baptism and Communion as sacraments and Means of Grace (although the precise definition of 'Means of Grace' does apparently differ between them). Lutheranism and Methodism are both part of what this chart on Wikipedia labels the 'Magisterial Reformation', Lutheranism splitting from the Catholic Church, while Methodism split from the Anglican Church two and a half centuries later (and under differing circumstances; there were internal church politics involved, but the immediate catalyst was actually the difficulties involved with the American Revolution, with the American side breaking ties with the Church of England at least 10 years - I think it was 10 years - before the British Methodists split...an interesting side effect of this is that Methodism in the U.S. has a reputation of being more high church than Methodism in the U.K., although as I've never been across the Atlantic I can't say for sure).

I'm not exactly clear on the full weight Lutherans give to the effects of Baptism, so I'll let someone else answer that. Methodism views it as being symbolically representative of the role of prevenient grace (which might serve as a distinction since the vast majority of Methodists are Arminian rather than Reformed). The 'does Baptism absolve you from Original Sin' angle is very convoluted in Methodism because of Original Sin not necessarily being a theological focal point and therefore people may not be as well-informed on that issue (or some may prefer a version closer to Eastern Orthodox attitudes on the subject). The other possibility is that with the presence of prevenient grace in Methodist theology, Baptism's effectiveness in terms of Original Sin is seen as redundant.


With the Eucharist, both acknowledge the Real Presence, but again, the exact definitions differ. Lutheranism has the Sacramental Union and keeps the importance of the Body and Blood being united with the elements, whereas the way Methodism sees it is often referred to as 'Anamnetical' Real Presence, and the way in which the elements interact is left as a Holy Mystery. It is considered to be more than symbolic, and more accurately as a re-presentation of the Last Supper. A fuller explanation is given on Wikipedia.

Qyöt27;59937014 said:

Well, both Lutherans and Methodists regard Baptism and Communion as sacraments and Means of Grace (although the precise definition of 'Means of Grace' does apparently differ between them). Lutheranism and Methodism are both part of what this chart on Wikipedia labels the 'Magisterial Reformation', Lutheranism splitting from the Catholic Church, while Methodism split from the Anglican Church two and a half centuries later (and under differing circumstances; there were internal church politics involved, but the immediate catalyst was actually the difficulties involved with the American Revolution, with the American side breaking ties with the Church of England at least 10 years - I think it was 10 years - before the British Methodists split...an interesting side effect of this is that Methodism in the U.S. has a reputation of being more high church than Methodism in the U.K., although as I've never been across the Atlantic I can't say for sure).


I'm not exactly clear on the full weight Lutherans give to the effects of Baptism, so I'll let someone else answer that. Methodism views it as being symbolically representative of the role of prevenient grace (which might serve as a distinction since the vast majority of Methodists are Arminian rather than Reformed). The 'does Baptism absolve you from Original Sin' angle is very convoluted in Methodism because of Original Sin not necessarily being a theological focal point and therefore people may not be as well-informed on that issue (or some may prefer a version closer to Eastern Orthodox attitudes on the subject). The other possibility is that with the presence of prevenient grace in Methodist theology, Baptism's effectiveness in terms of Original Sin is seen as redundant.


With the Eucharist, both acknowledge the Real Presence, but again, the exact definitions differ. Lutheranism has the Sacramental Union and keeps the importance of the Body and Blood being united with the elements, whereas the way Methodism sees it is often referred to as 'Anamnetical' Real Presence, and the way in which the elements interact is left as a Holy Mystery. It is considered to be more than symbolic, and more accurately as a re-presentation of the Last Supper. A fuller explanation is given on Wikipedia.

Click to expand...

Very interesting post! Thanks for the information, it is appreciated. So are the main pieces of contention the eucharist and baptism, in your view?

Those are two of them, yes, but there's probably others. Another thing to consider would be the history involved. In many cases you could contrast Lutheran and Anglican churches and the comparison would still be fairly accurate for Lutheran and Methodist comparisons.

Whether it would be 'contention' may also have to do with the particular denominations involved. For instance, the UMC and ELCA fully recognize each other's validity, but other denoms (in both the Methodist and Lutheran continuums) don't necessarily see ecumenism in as positive a light.

"Methodism" started as a club at Oxford that a man named John Wesley Belonged to. These men would meet every day and observed a unique lifestyle of prayer and devotion that that were very extreme to say the least. These men earned the title of " Methodists" from their fellow classmates. It was a jab of sorts but they took it on as a badge of honor and only allowed others in the club who could maintain this "Method" of prayer and meditation. See, Methodism was really a society not a denomination. John Wesley was an Anglican and very concerned with Apostolic succesion. He had no interest in starting his own religion or denomination. THese were Anglicans that observed a certain "Method" of prayer, meditation and lifestyle of non-excess. For example if one had 2 lumps of sugar and extra cream with tea, there would be no bread and butter with dinner. (I read that one in hid diary) Wesley formed this society within the chrch and it got huge. He was a very big deal and wrote many famous sermons and started many churches and his brother was a vary famous Hymnist. They came to the USA (before it was the USA and started some churches. Some took and they got ran out of some towns. They were up against the Calvinists and the Catholics among others. WHen the war came, he was on the side of Britan but the Methodist Society was so big, it out survived him and became a denomination.

THat's a badly slapped together nutshell of how Methodism came together. It's an Anglican off-shoot but the whole thing was based on the writings of John Wesley and his version of Arminianism. Synergism, we co-operate in our salvation. GOd gives us a free invitation and we accept. The invitation is for everyone, not just the elect and anyone can choose salvation. Once it is chosen, GOd works in us as we do God's work and the more God works in us the closer we come to Godlyness. THe more of Go'd work we do, the more God works in us etc.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. People confuse him with works based salvation but it's more like works based sanctification. We do God;s work/God works in us/God works in us/we do God;s work round and round.

rturner76 said:

"Methodism" started as a club at Oxford that a man named John Wesley Belonged to. These men would meet every day and observed a unique lifestyle of prayer and devotion that that were very extreme to say the least. These men earned the title of " Methodists" from their fellow classmates. It was a jab of sorts but they took it on as a badge of honor and only allowed others in the club who could maintain this "Method" of prayer and meditation. See, Methodism was really a society not a denomination. John Wesley was an Anglican and very concerned with Apostolic succesion. He had no interest in starting his own religion or denomination. THese were Anglicans that observed a certain "Method" of prayer, meditation and lifestyle of non-excess. For example if one had 2 lumps of sugar and extra cream with tea, there would be no bread and butter with dinner. (I read that one in hid diary) Wesley formed this society within the chrch and it got huge. He was a very big deal and wrote many famous sermons and started many churches and his brother was a vary famous Hymnist. They came to the USA (before it was the USA and started some churches. Some took and they got ran out of some towns. They were up against the Calvinists and the Catholics among others. WHen the war came, he was on the side of Britan but the Methodist Society was so big, it out survived him and became a denomination.

THat's a badly slapped together nutshell of how Methodism came together. It's an Anglican off-shoot but the whole thing was based on the writings of John Wesley and his version of Arminianism. Synergism, we co-operate in our salvation. GOd gives us a free invitation and we accept. The invitation is for everyone, not just the elect and anyone can choose salvation. Once it is chosen, GOd works in us as we do God's work and the more God works in us the closer we come to Godlyness. THe more of Go'd work we do, the more God works in us etc.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. People confuse him with works based salvation but it's more like works based sanctification. We do God;s work/God works in us/God works in us/we do God;s work round and round.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the great post! In response to your last paragraph, I'll just give mine own 'two cents worth': if his view of sanctification has to do with salvation (like, the more sanctified/holier you are the more you are saved or close you are to salvation), then that is a works based salvation (again, this is just my p.o.v). As a Lutheran, I believe salvation is completely, 100% what God did for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No amount of good things we do or personal holiness we can attain in this life can even begin to make us holy before God in the face of what He had to do FOR us.

Anyway, again, that just my view! But I don't want to throw sanctification off to the side. Its an integral part of the Christian life and really you can't be saved without following Jesus. But based on the cross, in the end we will be judged by our works but saved on our faith in Jesus.

Also, take into account I'm likely not explaining it the proper way. I'm not a pastor or any kind of scholar. I think the point is that by allowing Christ into our lives, you have allowed him to to his work through our bodies. Not that we will be more or less "saved." He had this idea about attaining something close to "CHristian Perfection" through Christ;s work in us and by us accepting his rule over our lives. We will never be perfect but we can be more Godly people the more we do God's work I think is the gist of it. HOWEVER we can only do God's work when we have accepted God's son as the ruler of our lives so it's another circular deal. And again, this is one laypersons interpretation of John Wesley's work. Much more detail can be found in Googlebooks if you go through John Wesley or Methodist Works. There is a ton of info there about how to interpret this stuff with. SOme good info about Methodism and John Wesley. Much of it seems bretty unbiased. Wesley was pretty interested in high church stuff but it caught on in country places if I understand right. Places where there needed to be some rules established, Methodism flourished.

CJtheCatholic said:

Thank you for the great post! In response to your last paragraph, I'll just give mine own 'two cents worth': if his view of sanctification has to do with salvation (like, the more sanctified/holier you are the more you are saved or close you are to salvation), then that is a works based salvation (again, this is just my p.o.v). As a Lutheran, I believe salvation is completely, 100% what God did for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No amount of good things we do or personal holiness we can attain in this life can even begin to make us holy before God in the face of what He had to do FOR us.

Anyway, again, that just my view! But I don't want to throw sanctification off to the side. Its an integral part of the Christian life and really you can't be saved without following Jesus. But based on the cross, in the end we will be judged by our works but saved on our faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Sanctification is what occurs due to the effect of God's sanctifying grace working within us. Salvation is separate.

CJtheCatholic said:

Thank you for the great post! In response to your last paragraph, I'll just give mine own 'two cents worth': if his view of sanctification has to do with salvation (like, the more sanctified/holier you are the more you are saved or close you are to salvation), then that is a works based salvation (again, this is just my p.o.v). As a Lutheran, I believe salvation is completely, 100% what God did for us in the person and work of Jesus Christ. No amount of good things we do or personal holiness we can attain in this life can even begin to make us holy before God in the face of what He had to do FOR us.

Anyway, again, that just my view! But I don't want to throw sanctification off to the side. Its an integral part of the Christian life and really you can't be saved without following Jesus. But based on the cross, in the end we will be judged by our works but saved on our faith in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I can clear up some fog here...... BTW, Brother Robert, you did well explaining the concepts quite accurately. And, I am not actually a UMC, though, I do not differ from them on very much, if on anything important.

We Arminian-Wesleyans are saved by GOD's grace through faith in Jesus' substitutional sacrifice of Himself for us, in our rightful place of condemnation. It is a once, for all sin, for all who will accept it. Not everyone will accept it, though it is available to all who will follow the tugging of the Holy Spirit upon our heart strings.

We believe in eternal security of the believer and that the believer, for whatever irrational reason(s) can stop being a believer in Christ Jesus and GOD.

Concerning sanctification. We see it as a continuation of growing closer to GOD, not greater salvation. As you, we believe Jesus' work on the cross was unto salvation of believers. It is done, it is finished, it is completed.

Sanctification is the ability, given by GOD to us through the power of the Holy Spirit to live for one hour without sin. To live for one day without sin. To live for one week without sin. To live for one month without sin, etc.. It is not works based salvation, because it has nothing to do with salvation, other than one cannot attain sanctificatio without salvation in Christ Jesus. Salvation begins the process of drawing closer to GOD. Do we stil sin? Yes, and that sin is already covered by the blood of Jesus. Are we then perfect? No, we are perfected, not perfect. Sanctification is a process, as I said, started by salvation in Christ Jesus. It is carried out by the Holy Spirit as we surrender more and more of ourselves to Him. So, is surrender a works based salvation? I think not! Is sanctification a higher level of salvation? I know it is not!

Sanctification is a greater level of surrender. It is us doing less work and the Holy Spirit doing more work in our lives.

Be blessed,
Lee52

Lee52 said:

Let me see if I can clear up some fog here...... BTW, Brother Robert, you did well explaining the concepts quite accurately. And, I am not actually a UMC, though, I do not differ from them on very much, if on anything important.

We Arminian-Wesleyans are saved by GOD's grace through faith in Jesus' substitutional sacrifice of Himself for us, in our rightful place of condemnation. It is a once, for all sin, for all who will accept it. Not everyone will accept it, though it is available to all who will follow the tugging of the Holy Spirit upon our heart strings.

We believe in eternal security of the believer and that the believer, for whatever irrational reason(s) can stop being a believer in Christ Jesus and GOD.

Concerning sanctification. We see it as a continuation of growing closer to GOD, not greater salvation. As you, we believe Jesus' work on the cross was unto salvation of believers. It is done, it is finished, it is completed.

Sanctification is the ability, given by GOD to us through the power of the Holy Spirit to live for one hour without sin. To live for one day without sin. To live for one week without sin. To live for one month without sin, etc.. It is not works based salvation, because it has nothing to do with salvation, other than one cannot attain sanctificatio without salvation in Christ Jesus. Salvation begins the process of drawing closer to GOD. Do we stil sin? Yes, and that sin is already covered by the blood of Jesus. Are we then perfect? No, we are perfected, not perfect. Sanctification is a process, as I said, started by salvation in Christ Jesus. It is carried out by the Holy Spirit as we surrender more and more of ourselves to Him. So, is surrender a works based salvation? I think not! Is sanctification a higher level of salvation? I know it is not!

Sanctification is a greater level of surrender. It is us doing less work and the Holy Spirit doing more work in our lives.

Be blessed,
Lee52

Click to expand...

Thanks for the awesome post! And also many thanks for clearing that up. This pretty much, for all intents and purposes, is exactly what Lutherans believe about sanctification too. I thought from the other post that perhaps Wesley taught a works based theology. So glad to see he did not!

Ok, if I can propose another question. This is really a 'what if' type of question and not necessarily theology. But I am wondering what Methodists/Wesleyans believe about the salvation of those who have never heard the gospel or Christ's name (or even of God the Father). Do Methodists/Wesleyans believe they can be saved? Also, I invite other Lutherans to chime in if they come by!

As for what I think: I think they can, based on what Jesus Christ did on the cross (as He died for the sins of the entire world). I have never doubted God's love for such people, and I believe God will save them in some way. How? I don't know. But I trust in His mercy that he will. Some Lutherans might disagree with my view! lol from what I have seen, most Lutherans believe different things when it comes to this issue.

I think it's the same that Methodists will disagree but I personally believe they will be saved. The church I grew up in AME (African Methodist Episcopal) I don't know if they were supposed to but my perticular Pastor taught something like Universal salvation. Just that God's grace is sufficient for all period. Now that's waaay dofferent from probably MOST Methodists. But that's me

Lutherans drink more, that's about all I know.

Though my church is progressive, we have some Methodists in the area that are against consuming alcohol to the point they're defending archaic blue laws that make no sense whatsoever.

I went on an outing one time with a Lutheran church and shared a pitcher with the pastor.

/should have been Lutheran

Yeah, AME is no drinky at all at chuch related anything.

Regarding the atonement, Methodism holds that Christ died for all, and also tends to favor the Governmental view, although some might lean more toward Christus Victor. Especially more true with the liturgical revival that's been occurring since the latter part of the 20th century.

I leave matters of who gets saved to God, and that the primary function there is the expression of mercy (and I mean that, not as some definition of 'mercy' that's little more than retributive judgment in disguise). In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if - like it mentions in Scripture - many that call themselves Christians aren't, and conversely, that many you wouldn't think would be saved very well might be. I don't try and assume I know some formulaic prescription that guarantees salvation, because that cheapens what faith is really supposed to be. Then again, I'm also somewhat existentialist.

Qyöt27:

I leave matters of who gets saved to God,

Click to expand...

That is my take on that also. When a human hears the Gospel of Jesus, they have a choice. I my case, GOD presented that choice several times to me, in several venues, over several years. Finally, He brought the one, last opportunity to me, and made it very clear to me that this was my one, last opportunity to decide, FOREVER. I chose Jesus' substitutional sacrifice on my behalf, forever.

I was instantaneously saved by grace, through faith in Him. I did not immediately change my sinful ways. That took time and surrender to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It was not always easy at the start. Over the years, it has become easier and easier for me to surrender, follow, and do.

As my studies into the Bible have deepened, I have a real appreciation for men like John Wesley and his insight into Jesus' ministry on this earth. I will put forth this observation of modern men and women of ministry: When they preach and teach Jesus' sacrifice for individuals it makes no difference whether they are Calvinist or Arminian in their own personal views of doctrine. They are teaching something of great value.

I have appreciated some of the teaching sermons of the late, J. Vernon McGee. I have appreciated some of the sermons of Chuck Swindoll and Chuck Smith. I have appreciated some of the teachings of John McArthur. Two men, who's books have had a profound effect upon my Christian walk and ministry are Jerry Cook and Jeff VonVanderen. Not one of these men is of my (non)denomination. I know from J. Vernon McGee's & John McArthur's own teachings that they were/are OSAS doctrine. But I do not know about the others because I have never heard them teach doctrine. I don't even know what denomination Chuck Swindoll is. Chuck Smith is Calvary Chapel. Jerry Cook is Four Square. Jeff VonVanderen is Lutheran, but I don't know of which Synod.

The important thing to take from this is that when we teach Christ Jesus crucified for all sin, for all humans, for all time, guaranteed for all who accept that free gift, we do not error from the GOD intended purpose of the Gospel.

It is not up to us to judge whether or not GOD allows anyone else into eternity based upon GOD's own criteria which He has graciously NOT shared with us. We are told that we, the human race on earth that hear the Gospel have two choices for salvation; 1) Jesus, 2) keeping the entire Law. Both hinge upon faith.

It is not my job to judge another man's faith. So, I leave it at that. GOD is soveriegn and who am I to judge His ways? Do not be confused here, I am NOT a purist of "Sovereignty of GOD" doctrine as in OSAS of the few elect. To me, the Bible is very clear that we all, ALL HUMANS were originally predestined to be in fellowship with GOD and are the original ELECT. That election hinges upon our GOD given free will choice to accept and follow, or reject and perish.

Be blessed,
Lee52

Lee52 said:

Qyöt27:

That is my take on that also. When a human hears the Gospel of Jesus, they have a choice. I my case, GOD presented that choice several times to me, in several venues, over several years. Finally, He brought the one, last opportunity to me, and made it very clear to me that this was my one, last opportunity to decide, FOREVER. I chose Jesus' substitutional sacrifice on my behalf, forever.

I was instantaneously saved by grace, through faith in Him. I did not immediately change my sinful ways. That took time and surrender to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It was not always easy at the start. Over the years, it has become easier and easier for me to surrender, follow, and do.

As my studies into the Bible have deepened, I have a real appreciation for men like John Wesley and his insight into Jesus' ministry on this earth. I will put forth this observation of modern men and women of ministry: When they preach and teach Jesus' sacrifice for individuals it makes no difference whether they are Calvinist or Arminian in their own personal views of doctrine. They are teaching something of great value.

I have appreciated some of the teaching sermons of the late, J. Vernon McGee. I have appreciated some of the sermons of Chuck Swindoll and Chuck Smith. I have appreciated some of the teachings of John McArthur. Two men, who's books have had a profound effect upon my Christian walk and ministry are Jerry Cook and Jeff VonVanderen. Not one of these men is of my (non)denomination. I know from J. Vernon McGee's & John McArthur's own teachings that they were/are OSAS doctrine. But I do not know about the others because I have never heard them teach doctrine. I don't even know what denomination Chuck Swindoll is. Chuck Smith is Calvary Chapel. Jerry Cook is Four Square. Jeff VonVanderen is Lutheran, but I don't know of which Synod.

The important thing to take from this is that when we teach Christ Jesus crucified for all sin, for all humans, for all time, guaranteed for all who accept that free gift, we do not error from the GOD intended purpose of the Gospel.

It is not up to us to judge whether or not GOD allows anyone else into eternity based upon GOD's own criteria which He has graciously NOT shared with us. We are told that we, the human race on earth that hear the Gospel have two choices for salvation; 1) Jesus, 2) keeping the entire Law. Both hinge upon faith.

It is not my job to judge another man's faith. So, I leave it at that. GOD is soveriegn and who am I to judge His ways? Do not be confused here, I am NOT a purist of "Sovereignty of GOD" doctrine as in OSAS of the few elect. To me, the Bible is very clear that we all, ALL HUMANS were originally predestined to be in fellowship with GOD and are the original ELECT. That election hinges upon our GOD given free will choice to accept and follow, or reject and perish.

Be blessed,
Lee52

Click to expand...

Thanks for this great post! I pretty much lean in the direction that you do. Those who never have the opportunity to hear the Gospel are, in my view, given a chance of salvation in some way. Exactly how, I don't know. But like you, I believe that Jesus died for the sins of all man: past, present, and future. I think God knows what He is doing, and we have to trust Him.
Now, for those who outright reject the Gospel...that's another story.

WiredSpirit said:

Lutherans drink more, that's about all I know.

Though my church is progressive, we have some Methodists in the area that are against consuming alcohol to the point they're defending archaic blue laws that make no sense whatsoever.

I went on an outing one time with a Lutheran church and shared a pitcher with the pastor.

/should have been Lutheran

Click to expand...

I am still Anglican at heart, so Blue Laws never quite permeated my brain. Plus, my girl's godparents are Lutheran. From Wisconsin. Whatta combo!

utmtsumethodist said:

I am still Anglican at heart, so Blue Laws never quite permeated my brain. Plus, my girl's godparents are Lutheran. From Wisconsin. Whatta combo!

Click to expand...

I think the UMC is probably more representative of the population as a whole than any other denomination. Alcohol is no problem at my church and I've even drank on outings, but there are some congregations nearby that are much more conservative in every way. I don't know anything about the AME, but the Lutherans (ELCA) that I've seen are a good deal more progressive than the average Methodist.

I'm an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and have served as a UMC pastor for 25 of the last 30 years since I was first ordained. What did I do those other 5 years? Well, for 1 I served a student church at a UCC church. The other 4 I was hired by the Lutheran Church (ELCA) to run their synod youth program and also served as the defacto associate pastor of an ELCA congregation. Now, I'm late to the conversation, and I don't see anything that I really differ with on what was posted above. So, I'll just touch on a few things that I experienced as I adapted to being a Lutheran for those 4 years.

First, from the point of view of the ELCA, the most important question that they felt they needed to address in bringing me into their fold was my understanding of Holy Communion. Could I accept the idea of "the real presence" of Christ in communion?

Answer, I've always felt this was the silly question one could pose. Of course Christ is really present. After all, there is no place that Christ is not present. So, how could he not be really present in Holy Communion. That wasn't the response they were expecting. But as they thought about it with me, it actually seemed to satisfy them. Of course, I also understood what they meant by the phrase. And personally, I think that the emphasis is too strong on the idea of some transformation (even at the spiritual level) taking place in the bread and wine. But I do believe that Christ does come to us in a special and unique way, so that we in the UMC recognize Holy Communion as one of the means of grace. Thus, I can respect that Lutheran theology teaches this specifically by reference to Christ's "real presence" and was willing to say that this was what the Lutheran Church teaches and articulate why it does when teaching confirmation to our students. I believe the difference to be one more of terminology, than of theological constructs.

The question that they should have posed, because in time it became an issue for me with Lutheranism -- though they never seemed to think it was an issue with me -- was baptism. The words on the baptismal font spelled it out: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Now, for me it is enough that this comes from the second ending of Mark, a passage of doubtful authenticity so that I would not wish to build a theology of baptism around it -- that is the "reason" side of the Wesleyan quadrilateral showing through in my objection. But also, the way baptism was often discussed it seemed as if Lutherans were willing to adopt a sacramental view of baptism in which the words and the acts of the priest in conjunction with the water of baptism was in and of itself sufficient to guarantee salvation. And I just can't quite go there. Again, I find baptism to be a means of grace. And no Lutheran pastor that I can think of claims that baptism is actually a guarantee, but it is the ethos projected by the community as a whole.

Now, I think the reason they never had a problem with me is that what I was witnessing was not so much something that was built into the 500 years of Lutheran theology, but a reaction to the last 40 years of trying to find an answer to other denominations around them which are teaching that it is all up to humans to find Jesus, to believe, and thus to be saved. To a Lutheran that sounds a lot like salvation by human effort, and thus by works. We United Methodists don't believe in that at all; we think that baptism is wholly a work of God. So, while some of their sacramentalism raised red flags for me, none of my understanding of baptism -- that God comes to us and seeks us out for inclusion within this family -- raised red flags for them.

Beyond that, I would add my time in the Lutheran Church were among the best in my ministry. I learned to love the liturgy of the Lutheran Church and where possibly have tried to incorporate some of it into my ministry in the UMC.

I appreciated the emphasis that Lutherans have with regard to confirmation, and yet have reached a determination that if one makes too strong an emphasis on the importance of confirmation, it actually backfires. Parents pushed kids to attend to it and then (after being confirmed) honor them to make their own decision. Kids thus elect to go along to get along through their Jr. High years and rebel against it in high school. So, though they say words to the effect that they are confirming their baptism, their actions (backed up by parents who quit emphasizing church once confirmation is completed) indicate the exact opposite, and it comes not as a theological decision as much as an adolescent reaction to seeking to find their own self-identity apart from their parents. So, as a result of the most wonderful confirmation program I've ever seen designed being an abject failure in terms of the long-term results, I've moved away from doing confirmation at all and now address my youth individually. In my last church that worked extremely well, especially with previously unchurched youth. Time will tell if it will work long-term or not.

My Methodist background is that of a teetotaler. Lutherans definitely drink. The first time I went out with a group of my peers and where we gathered for conversation was the local bar it was a little wierd for me. But nobody that I was around was a drunk, be they clergy or laity. Indeed, I found that alcohol was handled much more responsibily in the Lutheran homes I went into than some of the Methodist homes I had known in the past. (Of course I had a bigger sampling to work from as a Methodist.) So, I've revised my feelings toward alcohol. By practice and personal choice I still don't drink. And I still believe that our society as a whole is not truly capable of handling it well. But I do recognize that some people can. Thus I'm more against the abuse of alcohol than merely the use of it as I might have once been.

CJtheCatholic said:

Ok, if I can propose another question. This is really a 'what if' type of question and not necessarily theology. But I am wondering what Methodists/Wesleyans believe about the salvation of those who have never heard the gospel or Christ's name (or even of God the Father). Do Methodists/Wesleyans believe they can be saved? Also, I invite other Lutherans to chime in if they come by!

As for what I think: I think they can, based on what Jesus Christ did on the cross (as He died for the sins of the entire world). I have never doubted God's love for such people, and I believe God will save them in some way. How? I don't know. But I trust in His mercy that he will. Some Lutherans might disagree with my view! lol from what I have seen, most Lutherans believe different things when it comes to this issue.

Click to expand...

I do strongly believe that those who are not Christians have a chance to be saved. God is Love. And Love does not fail.
Jesus himself said, "Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you."