Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Do Methodist belives they can lose salvation?


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Members

They don't need scriptural support for it. Like Anglicans, it is my understanding that Methodist do not believe the Bible is the sole guide for Church practice (prima scriptura as opposed to sola scriptura). The Church existed before the Bible, so it is more than reasonable to look to the practices of the early church as much as it is to look to the Bible. Plus, the Bible has more than one account of whole families being baptized without any indication that the children were excluded or a personal profession of faith was required (different argument for a different topic, so I won't debate it). The early church baptized babies. The whole idea of believers baptism doesn't appear until the Cathars (100% heretical) come along in southern France sometime in the 11th century

Please tell me you don't really believe this. Yes, the church existed before the Bible was put together, but the apostles spent a lot of time correcting the error that had crept into the church. Just because the "early" church (depending on your definition of early) practiced something doesn't mean it's scriptural.

And your definition of believers baptism is different than Jesus' definition. Believers baptism did come around until the 11th century? What type of baptism is Jesus and the apostles teaching in the New Testament? There's no historical record of infant baptism before the 3rd century, about the time Roman Catholicism was gearing up. To claim infant baptism with regard to Cornelius or the Philippian jailer is reading into scripture something that's not there.

While I didn't mean to hijack this thread from losing salvation to infant baptism, it is clear - based on your assertions - that the Methodists are simply a variation of Roman Catholicism. You can't preach and teach salvation by faith alone and then require baptism or keeping the sacraments to have it. And I've used direct quotes from the UMC website and I've relayed my wife's experience with Methodist teachings, and I've refuted all of that with Scripture. There is no scriptural support for the Methodist teachings listed in this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just to clarify a few things about confirmation and infant baptism (as much of this sounds a lot like the practices of Anglicanism):

When it says that an infant becomes a member of the church through baptism, it does not mean a member of the body of Christ, as in salvation. It means a member of the local Christian community, to be raised and instructed in a Christian home and church. A baby doesn't get to decide on whether or not it will be admitted and included in the Christian community anymore than it gets to decide whether or not it will be admitted or included in its own family.

As far as confirmation, I believe you are taking a website explanation of something and only looking at the words without any concordance from an actual member. If you are not familiar with the process or terminology, it's only reasonable that you would be confused or misunderstand. Confirmation is supposed to be an outward sign of the inward manifestation of faith. One goes through confirmation classes to determine whether or not that faith has indeed manifested itself. If it has, then the confirmand is expected to confirm his or her faith publically. Although you don't use the same words and practices, I'm reminded of my own confirmation when I read several of y'all's (forgive the double apostrophe - I'm southern) conversion experiences in which a leader from the Church came to your house, spoke with you about the gospel, then proceeded to make sure you had a sincere and real faith in Christ. It's the same thing.


Thank you for helping with the clarification. Sometimes it's hard to explain if you don't have any experiences outside of denominations where these practices are the norm. (And I'm southern too, no worries with the double apostrophe!) I grew up Methodist, but am Anglican/Episcopalian now and you are correct that the practices are extremely similar.

Just because we have a name and a formalized process doesn't make it any less real and doesn't make us any less saved.

May God bless you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They don't need scriptural support for it. Like Anglicans, it is my understanding that Methodist do not believe the Bible is the sole guide for Church practice (prima scriptura as opposed to sola scriptura). The Church existed before the Bible, so it is more than reasonable to look to the practices of the early church as much as it is to look to the Bible. Plus, the Bible has more than one account of whole families being baptized without any indication that the children were excluded or a personal profession of faith was required (different argument for a different topic, so I won't debate it). The early church baptized babies. The whole idea of believers baptism doesn't appear until the Cathars (100% heretical) come along in southern France sometime in the 11th century.


Again, thank you for putting it in better words than I did PT! I often don't have time to be on my computer until late at night when I am already very tired! :coffee2:

The Bible is the final authority, but I have always heard it put this way - we worship God, not the Bible. Not saying that others do it the other way, but the Bible can be interpreted in a different way by virtually every person who reads it. Going back to an earlier comment I made about homosexuality, and I am truly sorry if I offended anyone, but I think these interpretive differences are the reasons for so many arguments among Christians. I have always believed that the scriptures clearly point to household baptism. I don't think that believer's baptism is wrong or right either, I think that it is a different interpretation.

Also, in response to an earlier question, there is no requirement that children be baptized in order to be saved or confirmed. Sometimes a child has not been baptized for various reasons. I know in my confirmation class, we had several teens who were baptized on that Sunday as well. Edited by CPR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please tell me you don't really believe this. Yes, the church existed before the Bible was put together, but the apostles spent a lot of time correcting the error that had crept into the church. Just because the "early" church (depending on your definition of early) practiced something doesn't mean it's scriptural.

And your definition of believers baptism is different than Jesus' definition. Believers baptism did come around until the 11th century? What type of baptism is Jesus and the apostles teaching in the New Testament? There's no historical record of infant baptism before the 3rd century, about the time Roman Catholicism was gearing up. To claim infant baptism with regard to Cornelius or the Philippian jailer is reading into scripture something that's not there.

While I didn't mean to hijack this thread from losing salvation to infant baptism, it is clear - based on your assertions - that the Methodists are simply a variation of Roman Catholicism. You can't preach and teach salvation by faith alone and then require baptism or keeping the sacraments to have it. And I've used direct quotes from the UMC website and I've relayed my wife's experience with Methodist teachings, and I've refuted all of that with Scripture. There is no scriptural support for the Methodist teachings listed in this thread.


:thumb::amen:

Scripture is so clear in these areas and the "interpretation" arguement doesn't hold water as Scripture declares there are no private interpretations of the Word. The Word is as it stands.

The UMCs in this area are so very liberal and in some ways Catholic-like that it's just terrible. The local UMC has had a pastor which "hooked up" with a married woman he was supposed to be counseling. He eventually chose the woman over his position, was fired and him and the woman moved away together. The next "pastor" was a woman with a butch haircut who didn't even preach that Christ really rose from the tomb! She preached such was just spiritual and that everyone has the spirit of God in our hearts that we just need to find. :smilie_loco:4 Following her the next pastor was an old guy that decided to quit his lifelong career in something totally outside anything church related and to become a pastor until retirement so here he is never having been a pastor before basically doing on-the-job training and his theology is more of the "works based salvation" sort of thing.

It's sad to see so many churches turning their backs on the clear teaching of Scripture, and yes it is clear if we are born again and allowing the Holy Ghost to teach us, and adopting such worldly, unscriptural ways, leading tens of thousands away from salvation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

From my dealings with those who have gone through confirmations in various denominations such ends up being more about learning what is expected and then repeating it rather than leading a person to an actual born again relationship with Christ.

It's amazing the number of people I've spoken with, read of and encountered in churches who went through their denominations confirmation, thought they were right with God yet didn't know Christ.

As most look back on it they see what they went through in confirmation as being good in some aspects of teaching some biblical things but sadly lacking in getting one saved. They all see how dangerous this could have been had they never heard the Gospel later.


Yes, but still they try to make it biblical, even though its not in the Bible. Sad thing, many fall for it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, but still they try to make it biblical, even though its not in the Bible. Sad thing, many fall for it.


Who tries to make it biblical? How are they trying to do so? Confirmation has nothing to do with salvation. It is merely a public profession of faith which presupposes that one already has such faith. And I know for a fact that at least one of the local Baptist Churches in my city ask its new member candidates to make such a profession, and rightfully so.

What's with all this "it's not in the Bible" stuff anyway? As stated before, there was a Christian Church, with certain practices, years upon years before there was a Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. You won't find many true Christians that worship the Bible, which is nothing more than idoltry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Who tries to make it biblical? How are they trying to do so? Confirmation has nothing to do with salvation. It is merely a public profession of faith which presupposes that one already has such faith. And I know for a fact that at least one of the local Baptist Churches in my city ask its new member candidates to make such a profession, and rightfully so.

What's with all this "it's not in the Bible" stuff anyway? As stated before, there was a Christian Church, with certain practices, years upon years before there was a Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. You won't find many true Christians that worship the Bible, which is nothing more than idoltry.


Actually, the Bible is a product of God. And how, please tell, do we know how to run a Church, run our families, run our daily lives without the Bible? It's the manual of life and the only way we know how to get saved...which is more important than anything. So, yeah, the Bible to me is pretty important. Without that, you'd know nothing of the early Church, Christs life, etc and we'd all be on our way to hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Who tries to make it biblical? How are they trying to do so? Confirmation has nothing to do with salvation. It is merely a public profession of faith which presupposes that one already has such faith. And I know for a fact that at least one of the local Baptist Churches in my city ask its new member candidates to make such a profession, and rightfully so.

What's with all this "it's not in the Bible" stuff anyway? As stated before, there was a Christian Church, with certain practices, years upon years before there was a Bible. The Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa. You won't find many true Christians that worship the Bible, which is nothing more than idoltry.


The early church had a plethora of problems which is what many of the Epistles were addressing. The Bible is a product of God, not the church. Notice the Lord never established "the" church, but rather many local, independent churches were established. The Word of God was copied and passed among these earliest of churches centuries before any organization claiming to be "the" church existed.

From what I've seen and heard if one passes through confirmation they are assumed to be okay with God and basically declared so in that church. No confirmation of their conversion, nothing about being born again in Christ, just pass the confirmation process and you're "in".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, the Bible is a product of God. And how, please tell, do we know how to run a Church, run our families, run our daily lives without the Bible? It's the manual of life and the only way we know how to get saved...which is more important than anything. So, yeah, the Bible to me is pretty important. Without that, you'd know nothing of the early Church, Christs life, etc and we'd all be on our way to hell.


There are some, especially Catholics and those with practices close to Catholic, which profess that "tradition" is equal to the Bible and in practice is greater than the Bible because if their tradition contradicts Scripture they hold to their tradition.

This was one of the great battle points between those in Christ who held to the Word of God and refused to be yoked with the Catholic church and was also a great battle point of those who rose up against the Catholic church during the Reformation.

It comes down to whether we will choose to follow the Word of God as given or if we choose to follow the traditions of men instead.

We choose as Joshua chose, as for me and my house we will serve God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The early church had a plethora of problems which is what many of the Epistles were addressing. The Bible is a product of God, not the church. Notice the Lord never established "the" church, but rather many local, independent churches were established. The Word of God was copied and passed among these earliest of churches centuries before any organization claiming to be "the" church existed.

From what I've seen and heard if one passes through confirmation they are assumed to be okay with God and basically declared so in that church. No confirmation of their conversion, nothing about being born again in Christ, just pass the confirmation process and you're "in".


There is only one body, just as there is only one head. St. Paul was emphatic in his emphasis that we all be one, as in undivided. You admit that the early church's scriptures are God inspired, so it must have some validity. Did not ever notice that all of the different congregations in the Bible were listening to the instructions of one central group of people?

And yes, if one goes through their confirmation classes and states that he or she has faith that Jesus Christ is the only begotton son of God, the Messiah, through whom we may access the father, and through whom our salvation is sealed, then they are assumed to be "okay with God." I don't know of any other way a person can express their faith. What do you do in your church, aside from asking if the person is "saved?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, the Bible is a product of God. And how, please tell, do we know how to run a Church, run our families, run our daily lives without the Bible? It's the manual of life and the only way we know how to get saved...which is more important than anything. So, yeah, the Bible to me is pretty important. Without that, you'd know nothing of the early Church, Christs life, etc and we'd all be on our way to hell.


I agree, the Bible is the product of God . . . delivered through his Church. No one said the Bible was not important or that it was not the primary guide to our faith. However, in addition to the Bible, we have the examples and practices of the early Church. It's not the only way we know how to get saved. The gospel was an oral tradition several years before it was codified in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And there were several writings of the early Church that are not considered, nor professing to be, the inspired Word of God, that give us the history and practices of the Church. Our faith is not founded on the Bible. It existed before and apart from scripture. Our faith is founded on Christ. Our practices are based on the practices of his Church. Don't get me wrong, I believe in prima scriptura, that is, that no belief or practice can contradict clear biblical teaching. However, I believe this because the Church accepted those books and cannonized them in to a collection known today as the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Don't get me wrong, I believe in prima scriptura, that is, that no belief or practice can contradict clear biblical teaching.
I'm sorry to point this out, but you can't believe this, based on what you've been posting. Several Methodist practices mentioned in this thread have been refuted ad nauseam with Scripture, and you have been defending them by elevating tradition to the level of Scripture. Several historical statements you've made have been shown to be incorrect or at least questionable. Defend your beliefs all you want, but you'll win no converts here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm sorry to point this out, but you can't believe this, based on what you've been posting. Several Methodist practices mentioned in this thread have been refuted ad nauseam with Scripture, and you have been defending them by elevating tradition to the level of Scripture. Several historical statements you've made have been shown to be incorrect or at least questionable. Defend your beliefs all you want, but you'll win no converts here.


I beg to differ. As I stated, I won't debate this point with you because neither one of us are going to change our minds. But you are obviously familiar with those biblical examples of entire households being baptized after the father has converted and himself been baptized. There is a difference between being converted to Christianity from one faith and being born into a Christian household and raised as a Christian. You believe that only those who were able to make a profession of faith were baptized, without that being stated in the scripture. The factt of the matter is that both positions are reasonable, I just believe mine is more reasonable, as you do yours.

You stating that infant baptism didn't arise until the 3rd centurey doesn't make it so. I'm sure you have some biased anti-infant baptism source which says this, while I have the historical records of the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandra, Corinth, Ephesus . . . It all boils down to which "source" you chose to believe.

And I'm not trying to convert anyone. There were some statements made about some of the practices which Methodist have that at least have something in common with Anglicanism (I do not in fact know what Methodist believe and can only speak to these issues based on my experience with them within the context of Anglicanism). We are all Christians, so I don't know what I would even be trying to convert you to. I merely choose an ancient way of practicing the faith, were as you choose a more modern method. I'm sure we have different reasons for each and I'm not about to say that my reason trumps your reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I beg to differ. As I stated, I won't debate this point with you because neither one of us are going to change our minds. But you are obviously familiar with those biblical examples of entire households being baptized after the father has converted and himself been baptized. There is a difference between being converted to Christianity from one faith and being born into a Christian household and raised as a Christian. You believe that only those who were able to make a profession of faith were baptized, without that being stated in the scripture. The factt of the matter is that both positions are reasonable, I just believe mine is more reasonable, as you do yours.

You stating that infant baptism didn't arise until the 3rd centurey doesn't make it so. I'm sure you have some biased anti-infant baptism source which says this, while I have the historical records of the Church of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandra, Corinth, Ephesus . . . It all boils down to which "source" you chose to believe.

And I'm not trying to convert anyone. There were some statements made about some of the practices which Methodist have that at least have something in common with Anglicanism (I do not in fact know what Methodist believe and can only speak to these issues based on my experience with them within the context of Anglicanism). We are all Christians, so I don't know what I would even be trying to convert you to. I merely choose an ancient way of practicing the faith, were as you choose a more modern method. I'm sure we have different reasons for each and I'm not about to say that my reason trumps your reason.


Agreed. Not everyone has an emotional "born again" experience. Some of us are raised in the church, come to an age of understanding and make a conscious decision to accept the grace of God and profess their faith in Jesus. Now that being said, I base my faith on Scripture, tradition and reason. Think of it as a three legged stool. If you take away one the whole thing will fall over and one cannot override the other. When studying the Bible you cannot check your brain at the door and you cannot forget your knowledge of history. The three work together, they are not mutually exclusive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...