GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Methodist  (Read 4345 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ex cathedra

  • Guest
Methodist
« on: Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 20:43:32 »
1)Old Methodists their services WERE not  set up to play on  ones emotions  for alter calls . They did not use alter calls .
MANY OF Their old hymns are favorites and loved by all  and found in many hymnals from Lutheran  to Baptist.


2) OLD Methodists believed  FAITH IN JESUS COMES BY HEARING .
Romans 10:17
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.


3)Old Methodists used only Male pastors.


4)Old methodists were famous AMOUNG  DENOMINATIONS for their horse back circuit riding preachers of the old west. MANY A PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE HEARD ABOUT THEIR SAVIOR Jesus  IF IT WERE NOT FOR THEM.


5) OLD METHODISTS preachers would ride their horses for miles to perform a baptism of a new born child.Or hold a catechism class miles from any town .


6)old Methodists believed in the "method" --  The more you learned your bibles and tried to obey it . The more
perfect and Christ like you became in this life Some  believed you may even be able to attain this perfection in this life. .

7) old Methodists thought abortion and homosexuality was against God's will for ones life.

8) THEIR STILL ARE  YOUNG PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE IN OLD METHODISM.

9) Old Methodists  also looked for religious experiances with their savior God.

10) Many protestants to day are  spinoffs of old Methodism .


                    

3 WELL KNOWN SPIN OFFS OF OLD METHODISM

THE ASSY OF GOD.

SALVATION ARMY

FREE METHODISTS
« Last Edit: Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 21:06:32 by ex cathedra »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Methodist
« on: Wed Jan 20, 2010 - 20:43:32 »

Angelos

  • Guest
Re: Methodist
« Reply #1 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 08:22:24 »
I can only convey my experience with the mainstream UMC Methodists in NYC. I went to a Methodist church in NYC and the minister seriously said that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, influenced by the Jewish culture and that the Resurrection might be just a metaphor!!

That was the last time I entered a Methodist Church

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Methodist
« Reply #1 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 08:22:24 »

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Methodist
« Reply #2 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 10:19:29 »
I can only convey my experience with the mainstream UMC Methodists in NYC. I went to a Methodist church in NYC and the minister seriously said that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, influenced by the Jewish culture and that the Resurrection might be just a metaphor!!

That was the last time I entered a Methodist Church


You stumbled onto a fruit of the ecumenical movement that produced changes to most protestant ecclessiologies.  There's a pretty detailed history on how all this came about. 

Study the roots of the YMCA.  Check out when the first "open communion" took place and under what circumstances.  Look to see when and where Christian communities stopped calling their church, "the one true church" and see how it relates to innovations concerning salvation vs what Church is. 

It's a pretty wild history.

I used to go to a free-Methodist Church.  I didn't grow up "churched" and so I didn't really know much about the bible or even Christianity.  I wasn't even sure if Christians thought Jesus was God.  I was in my late teens and had no clue and I was friends with "Christians". 

Once I started to go to church I had a ton of questions because I was reading the bible.  I wound up church hopping because I was never satisfied with the answers that were given.  They were always contradictory and or ignore other passages or just focused on one passage in order to interpret the other passage but then you could just do the opposite approach and come up with an entirely different and seeming "biblical" interpretation.  I went to a Baptist Church (different ones), Free-Methodist, Pentecostal, some kind of Messianic one, etc.  They all claimed to be biblical and it's true but only insofar as each of them used bible verses to justify their interpretation (which contradict with the group across the street).

Anyway, I remember asking people at the free-Methodist Church what baptism was and got like seven answers with seven different and conflicting interpretations.  At the end, rather than everyone just saying the other was wrong they all agreed to disagree as to what baptism was and that was the answer they gave me.  They just didn't know and they encouraged me to choose what I agreed with to formulate my own interpretation and the stuff I didn't agree with, to just chuck it out the window. 

The way most protestant churches are set up now is that there's no structure in place to keep heresies at bay because technically, to take a stand on something would mean that someone or a group of someones believes that the other someones are wrong and this gets labeled as "divisive".  After all, if I said baptism is A and the guy next to me says it's C, then in all reality, someone is wrong and or both are wrong.  And it would be "rude" to assume that either are right and so the position is just to be convinced in your own mind and agree to disagree. 

But we never get any closer to an answer and if we're honest, we are basically saying without saying, that the truth is relative and subject to interpretation. And that is the only thing that we ever say with any conviction. 

We embrace the mistreatment of truth and say we are doing it out of love.  This is far from love.  This is hate disguised as love.  A mere sentiment without "heart". 

As we speak, right now, there's an Anglican Bishop that believes just as you mentioned above, Angelos.  He doesn't believe that Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi but he believes that Jesus resurrection and ascension are all just metaphor.  In other words, he totally denies Jesus literal resurrection and ascension (more than this too but that's pretty bad). 

The thing is, the way the churches are all structured, the Anglicans can't do anything about it.  This "bishop" who is supposed to oversee all the other parishes in his jurisdiction is in GOOD standing.  He watches over the flock. 



Why?

Because it's considered divisive and arrogant to say that someone is "wrong".  Dogma and heresy are dirty words in the protestant churches (most of them). 

It's interesting though because each denomination has different standards of "heresy" but they still are forced to come up with what those standards are and they are very very loose. 

This is why no one protestant group has ever made a doctrinal stance either for or against the various and conflicting rapture teachings. 

This is why you can go to a Methodist Church and learn things that Wesley would have considered heretical to his teachings (the Methodists are traced back to Wesley - he had a bible study group that "methodically" studied the bible and his followers "founded" a church based on the bible study group). 

When I went to the Pentecostal church it was interesting because there too every individual had conflicting doctrines and even had conflicting beliefs on what was considered "biblical" worship practice. 

All this seems very confusing to nearly everyone that is honest about it and so most people just shrug their shoulders and just tell themselves that all this stuff must be unimportant. 

But as you admitted above, there's a real face behind sound doctrine.  Doctrines tell us who God is and it's up to us to live those doctrines. 


The current church structure are self destructive.  There are no stop-gates from keeping the wolves from picking off the flock.  Everyone thinks they have the right to interpret the scriptures independent from the Church.  And that sentiment is bearing fruit.   

It all boils down to authority. 


John 4

1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John

Matthew 28

 16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."


In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit




God bless



Angelos

  • Guest
Re: Methodist
« Reply #3 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 12:39:32 »
Dear Ryan2010,

I do believe that right dogma is important (which is why I don't go anymore to a Methodist Church, as you know I'm a Catholic). Having said that, some of these guys (in that church) were really great in spending time and energy and money helping the poor and I'm pretty confident that these actions please God.

So I do not view them as wolves. If anything I view them more as well meaning individuals, who do in many cases the work of God (thus pleasing God) but are in dogmatic error.

Now if I compare these guys to an Orthodox or Catholic Christian who does not do the work of God (I'm not saying Orthodox don't, it's an example) and looks down on his Christian brothers thinking somehow that he's superior because of his right "Orthos" faith, I'd say that they have a better chance at salvation despite their dogmatic errors.

So for me (and maybe for you) it's not black and white. You can find great Christians (and unfortunately Pharisees) in every Church

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Methodist
« Reply #3 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 12:39:32 »

Offline Ryan2010

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 19
  • Gender: Male
  • Jesus Christ Conquers
Re: Methodist
« Reply #4 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 14:08:13 »
Dear Ryan2010,

I do believe that right dogma is important (which is why I don't go anymore to a Methodist Church, as you know I'm a Catholic). Having said that, some of these guys (in that church) were really great in spending time and energy and money helping the poor and I'm pretty confident that these actions please God.

So I do not view them as wolves. If anything I view them more as well meaning individuals, who do in many cases the work of God (thus pleasing God) but are in dogmatic error.

Now if I compare these guys to an Orthodox or Catholic Christian who does not do the work of God (I'm not saying Orthodox don't, it's an example) and looks down on his Christian brothers thinking somehow that he's superior because of his right "Orthos" faith, I'd say that they have a better chance at salvation despite their dogmatic errors.

So for me (and maybe for you) it's not black and white. You can find great Christians (and unfortunately Pharisees) in every Church

I only meant to convey the wolf insofar as the teachings on who Christ is, go.  At the same time, I wouldn't criticize an atheist that donates money to the poor or an atheist scientist that seeks a cure for a certain disease. 

And I agree with the Pharisee comment.  We all play that role from time to time and it's a hard one to abstain from. 

Would you consider the bishop, despite that he might feed the poor and go visit widows etc., to be a sheep even if he denies the resurrection? 

Would you, despite his well-meaningness, consider him to be a worthy Overseer? 

If a certain church has a certain structure in place that allows bishops such as the bishop that denies resurrection, would you still consider this structure to be "ordained by God"? 

You understand what I'm saying.  I didn't mean to give the impression that there aren't people doing beneficial things but only that certain teachings and the structures that enable and encourage false doctrine are not unlike wolves amidst sheep.


God bless


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Methodist
« Reply #4 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 14:08:13 »



Angelos

  • Guest
Re: Methodist
« Reply #5 on: Wed Feb 10, 2010 - 14:18:03 »
I consider the minister I met (and the bishop in your example) who deny the resurrection a well meaning fool!!

Definitely what he does is sinful since he hurts people's faith...BUT...I do not think that's his intention. On the other hand, I also admire his energy and drive when it comes to helping the poor.

It's not a clear cut thing I guess. We all have the good and the bad in us. Is he a worthy overseer? He's definitely not the ideal, but I don't feel "worthy" enough to pass judgment on his "worthiness", especially since he had qualities (in social service) that I admired.

On my end, instead of trying to convince the Methodist minister that Wesley would turn over his grave if he had heard him I just removed myself from that church

Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
Re: Methodist
« Reply #6 on: Fri Jun 17, 2011 - 09:58:00 »
Quote
In other words, he totally denies Jesus literal resurrection and ascension (more than this too but that's pretty bad). 

Hi Ryan,

Does he deny Christs resurrection the way Paul describes it in 1 Cor 15:42-51. Paul does not mention the word "literal" but he does distiinguish between the "physical body" and the "spiritual body" of the resurrected Christ.

It seems to get off track when we insist on words like literal which the bible does not use. Even when Jesus appeared for the 40 days, he appeared only to believers and not as literal but as one whose even "bones" could be seen. This does not sound literal to me. JohnR

 

     
anything