So long. It's been fun!

[rockytopva]

In the 1800's old Virginie was just about all Methodist. In the last century or so they have broken up into Holiness, Pentecostal, and the UMC. These methods generalized into the following...

1. Justification - Simple faith in Jesus
2. Salvation - Simply acknowledging Christ
3. Sanctification - With a sweet spirit and a structured life
4. Witness of the Spirit - We Wesleyan Pentecostals were taught that this was not that far away from Sanctification.

Once you have been properly sanctified something happens to the spirit man that lifts you higher and higher. Smith Wigglesworths beginnings were with the Methodist and the Salvation Army. So he had a deep rooted Sanctification inside of him and still referred to this blessed experience in his writings...

"Smith Wigglesworth, like his earlier Methodist mentors, believed sanctification as something that sweetens the spirit up, making people more spiritual and loving. His wife once testified that she knew Smith was sanctified when he quit complaining about his food. Wigglesworth states that we are sanctified so that nothing hinders us in the manifestation of the Glory of God. In this way we are robbed of all pride, evil, and freely led of the Spirit. Evil thoughts come from the unclean believer, the man who is not entirely sanctified.

"Wigglesworth also stresses obedience as a fruit of sanctification. 'The Word is to be swallowed, not prayed over! If you ever pray over the Word of God there is some disobedience; where there is some disobedience; you are not willing to obey. If you come into the election of the sanctification of the Spirit, you will be obedient in everything concerning that Word. In the measure you are not obedient, you have not come into the sanctification of the Spirit.' – Smith Wigglesworth, New Zealand, 1922"

This is classic Wesleyan sanctification. This spirit of love and warmth also came down through the Virginias in the form of the old TV show, "The Waltons."

Once this sanctification takes place in the heart I do not think it ever leaves you. As far as I am concerned it will make you forever Wesleyan. It is my opinion that people are not getting properly sanctified these days and thus church hop from one wind of doctrine to another.

 

[BryanW92]

Yes, but what good is grace for the "non-elect" if they are doomed to hell? It sounds like pretty thin grace to me.

That being said, I'm not intending to get into a Calvinism/Arminian debate. It isn't very fruiftul to do so.

Are those who do not choose Christ doomed to hell? Pharoah was chosen to be a bad guy and his heart was hardened every time he thought about giving in to Moses. God is not "fair" in the human sense.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD."

A couple posts ago, you said that a healthy debate would be good as long as everyone stayed polite.

 

[BryanW92]

Once this sanctification takes place in the heart I do not think it ever leaves you. As far as I am concerned it will make you forever Wesleyan. It is my opinion that people are not getting properly sanctified these days and thus church hop from one wind of doctrine to another.

Perhaps you are correct. Or perhaps they are being sanctified and discovering truths previously concealed from them. Fortunately, sanctification is not something that you and I decide.

 

[rockytopva]

Perhaps you are correct. Or perhaps they are being sanctified and discovering truths previously concealed from them. Fortunately, sanctification is not something that you and I decide.

The old timers in Virginia would not let you claim sanctification if you had not the sweet spirit to go along with it.

 

[circuitrider]

I didn't say "on the attack". I was just agreeing about the word "militant". Are militant gays "on the attack" against the UMC, in your opinion? Or do they just have strongly held beliefs from which they will not waver?

I don't know Bryan. I don't know any "militant gays." I've yet to have a gay person tell me I'm not going to heaven if I don't agree with them. I've had Calvinist say that to me often as I've had fundamentalists do so.

Each persons experience is different. But even when I considered myself a more conservative or a middle of the road Christian, my experience was that liberal/progressive Christians would accept me for who I am and conservative/fundamentalist Christians would condemn me if I didn't totally agree with them.

I'm not saying liberals can't be "militant." But I've had far more experience with militant and extreme conservatives than any other group within Christianity. It is one of the reasons that while I started out in the SBC and as a conservative Christian I'm now a progressive United Methodist.

 

[rockytopva]

I did a devotional on one of these Virginians by the name of Robert Sayers Sheffey. Truly sanctified John Wesley Methodist! (from George Clark Rankin. The Story of My Life Or More Than a Half Century As I Have Lived It and Seen It Lived Written by Myself at My Own Suggestion and That of Many Others Who Have Known and Loved Me)

The rarest character I ever met in my life I met at that campmeeting in the person of Rev. Robert Sheffy, known as "Bob" Sheffy. He was recognized all over Southwest Virginia as the most eccentric preacher of that country. He was a local preacher; crude, illiterate, queer and the oddest specimen known among preachers. But he was saintly in his life, devout in his experience and a man of unbounded faith. He wandered hither and thither over that section attending meetings, holding revivals and living among the people. He was great in prayer, and Cripple Creek campground was not complete without "Bob" Sheffy. They wanted him there to pray and work in the altar.

He was wonderful with penitents. And he was great in following up the sermon with his exhortations and appeals. He would sometimes spend nearly the whole night in the straw with mourners; and now and then if the meeting lagged he would go out on the mountain and spend the entire night in prayer, and the next morning he would come rushing into the service with his face all aglow shouting at the top of his voice. And then the meeting always broke loose with a floodtide.

He could say the oddest things, hold the most unique interviews with God, break forth in the most unexpected spasms of praise, use the homeliest illustrations, do the funniest things and go through with the most grotesque performances of any man born of woman.

It was just "Bob" Sheffy, and nobody thought anything of what he did and said, except to let him have his own way and do exactly as he pleased. In anybody else it would not have been tolerated for a moment. In fact, he acted more like a crazy man than otherwise, but he was wonderful in a meeting. He would stir the people, crowd the mourner's bench with crying penitents and have genuine conversions by the score. I doubt if any man in all that conference has as many souls to his credit in the Lamb's Book of Life as old "Bob" Sheffy.

I have also did a devotional here... http://www.christianforums.com/t7630646/ I miss the old Methodist camp meetings and revival! It has been a long time since we have seen the circuit riders and evangelists that made this great!

 

[BryanW92]

I don't know Bryan. I don't know any "militant gays." I've yet to have a gay person tell me I'm not going to heaven if I don't agree with them. I've had Calvinist say that to me often as I've had fundamentalists do so.

Each persons experience is different. But even when I considered myself a more conservative or a middle of the road Christian, my experience was that liberal/progressive Christians would accept me for who I am and conservative/fundamentalist Christians would condemn me if I didn't totally agree with them.

I'm not saying liberals can't be "militant." But I've had far more experience with militant and extreme conservatives than any other group within Christianity. It is one of the reasons that while I started out in the SBC and as a conservative Christian I'm not a progressive United Methodist.

I've had gays and "Acceptings" tell me that I'm a bad person for not being an "Accepting" and going along with the full doctrine of gay marriage/adoption/ordination. Isn't that about the same thing?

I've had Progressives tell me that I'm a racist for not liking the politics of Obama. They say that I "hate" women for being pro-life. They say that I am "mean" for thinking that a grown man should work for his income. They say that my company is greedy and bent on destroying the planet for burning coal--even while they use the power generated from that coal.

Conservatives learned to be militant from Progressives. We watched how they treated Reagan to learn how to treat the other side's choice for President. We watch them emotionalize every issue and then militarize it to use as a weapon to get votes and funding. I learned from "Rules for Radicals", the Progressive bible.

 

[BryanW92]

It has been a long time since we have seen the circuit riders and evangelists that made this great!

Agreed!

 

[GraceSeeker]

I don't know Bryan. I don't know any "militant gays."

I have. Indeed, just this weekend on FB in a FB forum that claims it is a place for Methodists to get together and talk vs. fight about issues in the church. I think we all have to be aware that our individual experience is not necessarily the same as the corporate experience. We each live in a unique environment so that not only are the Lord's way not my ways, but your experiences aren't my experiences or vice versa.

I've had Calvinist say that to me often as I've had fundamentalists do so.

I have not. (Here just read a repeat of my above comments.)

Each persons experience is different.

Exactly. It really is hard to generalize from our own experiences which are much more narrow than we typically realize. But one thing I think that you will find is generally truly, the differences between denominations, even as disparate as Methodism and Presbyterianism are not nearly as wide as they used to be a century or two ago.

A story:
In 1967 we moved to the little town of Woodhull, IL (between Galesburg and the Quad Cities, then Tri-Cities, on the yet to be constructed I-74). There was in the town 3 churches: Lutheran (ALC), Methodist (MEC), and Presbyterian (sorry, I don't know which variety). The Lutheran Church was the big boy in town. My father, was assigned a 3-point charge in order to provide for a full-time pastor, and the Presbyterian Church had supply preachers covering for them. When one of the churches on the 3-point charge grew significantly, it decided that it wanted to go on its own. So, that left the one where we live with a big question mark as to how to go forward. For some 20 years the Methodists and Presbyterians, located only a block apart, had talked about how they should do cooperative ministry. They did it for things like VBS and youth group, why couldn't they do it on a larger scale. And so formal talks were started and in June 1969 the Presbyterian and Methodist (now UMC) congregations merged to form a new congregation, and the adjudicatory bodies of both denominations agreed that rather than having a vote to decide which of the two denominations they would be, that they would let the Illinois Council of Churches make that decision.

All of that is to say that while historically there were (and in some cases still are) significant differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, that in actual congregational settings today, Methodists and Presbyterians don't differ so much from each other that one can't move from one to the other. There are enough common points of theology that being of one background shouldn't prevent you from being able to find a home in the other as long as the local congregation itself is a good fit.

 

[BryanW92]

All of that is to say that while historically there were (and in some cases still are) significant differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, that in actual congregational settings today, Methodists and Presbyterians don't differ so much from each other that one can't move from one to the other. There are enough common points of theology that being of one background shouldn't prevent you from being able to find a home in the other as long as the local congregation itself is a good fit.

That's what I'm discovering too. I think its just Protestant Christians worshiping God. Probably less than 1 in 5 could give a 5 minute talk on the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. It almost boils down to a Ford vs Chevy type of argument.

 

[GraceSeeker]

That's what I'm discovering too. I think its just Protestant Christians worshiping God. Probably less than 1 in 5 could give a 5 minute talk on the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. It almost boils down to a Ford vs Chevy type of argument.

What I find is that most churches simply aren't as connected to their historical theological roots as they are to their own history of personal life experiences and what has been passed down in the local context.

My guess is that experientially Presbyterian Churches simply aren't rooted in Calvinism. There is probably a greater difference between American Presbyterianism and Swiss Reformed congregations than there is between American United Methodism and American Presbyterianism.

 

[circuitrider]

Bryan,

As GraceSeeker has said, each of us have individual experiences.

I've never seen you write about the President here so I can't judge how or what your expressed. I've seen some very racist statements made some conservative Christians about him, but I've never seen you write about the subject here at all. So I'd not make any assumptions about your political opinions.

If you look up the word "militant" it involves more than strong disagreement. It usually involves violent or near violent disageement.

As I alluded to above, I grew up in the SBC when the denomination was going through its fundamentalist takeover. Those of us who were not fundamentalists were reviled, attacked, and chased off in ways that were far from Christian. If you didn't exactly tow the party line you were a "liberal" at best and an infidel at worst. If you think I'm exagerating I could go on for pages about people who lost careers or left for other denominations do to the constant attacks on their jobs and ministries.

So, yes my background gives me a pretty negative view of fundamentalism in particular and much of right wing Christianity in general.

 

[BryanW92]

I've never seen you write about the President here so I can't judge how or what your expressed. I've seen some very racist statements made some conservative Christians about him, but I've never seen you write about the subject here at all. So I'd not make any assumptions about your political opinions.

Eric Holder, the AG of the USA, has said recently that disagreeing with Obama is caused by racism. So has Chris Matthews, Juan Williams, and a bevy of other Progressive talking heads. In fact, it is their favorite meme.

Go ahead and assume that I do not like what he stands for and his vision for America. But, there are plenty of white Progressives whose plans for America I also do not like.

 

[BryanW92]

If you look up the word "militant" it involves more than strong disagreement. It usually involves violent or near violent disageement.

I already did. See #2.

mil·i·tant

: having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something




Full Definition of MILITANT



1
: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting

2
: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

 

[BryanW92]

As I alluded to above, I grew up in the SBC when the denomination was going through its fundamentalist takeover. Those of us who were not fundamentalists were reviled, attacked, and chased off in ways that were far from Christian. If you didn't exactly tow the party line you were a "liberal" at best and an infidel at worst. If you think I'm exagerating I could go on for pages about people who lost careers or left for other denominations do to the constant attacks on their jobs and ministries.

So, yes my background gives me a pretty negative view of fundamentalism in particular and much of right wing Christianity in general.

I believe you. As a practicing Atheist in the south during those days, my co-workers were very un-Christian towards me. They had a room picked out for me in a much deeper and hotter hell than the one they reserved for liberals. They reinforced my beliefs that Atheism is correct every time they tried to convert me. I do not like extreme fundamentalism at all.

But, as for the right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, I let the politics and not the theology of a person show me who their God really is.

 

[circuitrider]

I believe you. As a practicing Atheist in the south during those days, my co-workers were very un-Christian towards me. They had a room picked out for me in a much deeper and hotter hell than the one they reserved for liberals. They reinforced my beliefs that Atheism is correct every time they tried to convert me. I do not like extreme fundamentalism at all.

But, as for the right-wing/left-wing dichotomy, I let the politics and not the theology of a person show me who their God really is.

Sounds like you had similar experiences then. Sad isn't it?

So for me it was the middle left to left wing folks that rescued me from wanting to abandon Christianity. I'll be honest, if God was really like the God that the SBC leadership seems to believe in I'd not find being a Christian very attractive.

 

[Joykins]

Conservatives learned to be militant from Progressives.

this is not something any side has to learn...all they have to do is let their opinions overcome their human-kindness, and anyone can do that.

 

[circuitrider]

this is not something any side has to learn...all they have to do is let their opinions overcome their human-kindness, and anyone can do that.

Agreed Joykins though I have to say that an element of fundamentalist theology is that it has to ben in oppostion to something. This is often called the "righteous remnant" view of theology. This shows itself as a "purity" theology where those who don't have the pure theology are rejected from among the righteous.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Agreed Joykins though I have to say that an element of fundamentalist theology is that it has to ben in oppostion to something. This is often called the "righteous remnant" view of theology. This shows itself as a "purity" theology where those who don't have the pure theology are rejected from among the righteous.

Attitudes that I don't find limited to any one particular political or theological ideaology.

 

[circuitrider]

Attitudes that I don't find limited to any one particular political or theological ideaology.

I guess I've just been lucky then (or unlucky) with my experience of receiving such attitudes only from one side.