Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Guest Guest

Do Methodist belives they can lose salvation?

Recommended Posts


CPR, it is no wonder you do not grasp the spiritual side, (your "priest"?). Surely we are to help the down and out, but why not meet the greatest need of all--Jesus in their life? As John 81 has said, you meet the physical need for today, but they will need again another day; if the spiritual need is met, they have the promise of God they shall "never thirst again" or go hungry; in fact ALL their basic needs will be met, and eventually they will have no more physical needs either. And yes, if the children were taught faith, they would be better off.


Again, the love that we shared and the friendships that were built (many of which lasted long after we were gone) provided multiple opportunities to share the Gospel. I believe that that is the most effective way to share the Gospel. Also, many of the people were already Christians, and I believe that God may have been providing for them though us. With the tutoring scenario, it's another matter of building relationships. Maybe we are just misunderstanding each other, because I am not saying that we shouldn't share the Gospel and it seems that you are not saying that we shouldn't help others. I think that it is most effective to share the Gospel by first building relationships, and perhaps we have different styles. That's not necessarily a bad thing, different styles can reach different types of people.

So you see, I do grasp the spiritual side. What did you mean by (your "priest"?)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I offended you, I am trying my best to speak in love because I've come to anger to quickly in the past. I was not angry or stricken with some sort of hate for what you/they were doing. I think those people were doing good things and should continue but in those endeavors adding soul-winning and preaching of the Gospel would have been prudent.

God Bless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I offended you, I am trying my best to speak in love because I've come to anger to quickly in the past. I was not angry or stricken with some sort of hate for what you/they were doing. I think those people were doing good things and should continue but in those endeavors adding soul-winning and preaching of the Gospel would have been prudent.

God Bless.


You didn't offend me at all and I hope I haven't offended you either. I think this has made for some interesting discussion among Christians who may share the Gospel through different ways - not necessarily a bad thing.

May God bless you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is what those people were doing, a lot of it might be for naught (maybe not in this life but surely in the next since you aren't bringing a house or food with you) if they aren't soul winning and spreading the gospel at the same time. Lets be honest, if you come to Christ and are saved...your needs will be provided. If you have your full faith in our Lord you'll have food somehow and you'll have a place to sleep somehow...God will provide. If spiritual needs are met first then physical needs will follow. If physical needs are provided, the spiritual needs might or might not follow.



The Methodist Church in our town, it does many wonderful works, yet denies God in its beliefs, its works, and how it runs its church.

Its so true, many today, even professing Christians, thinks wonderful works ='s salvation. Yet with out Christ, any and all of our works are not accepted.

The greatest thing one can do for any person, poor or rich, very popular or highly unpopular, it is to share Christ with them.

If I remember right, someone said something about receiving grace from observing the Lord's Supper. I do not see that taught in the Bible. What I see taught is that we observe the Lord's Supper in remembrance.

Lu 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Methodist Church in our town, it does many wonderful works, yet denies God in its beliefs, its works, and how it runs its church.

Its so true, many today, even professing Christians, thinks wonderful works ='s salvation. Yet with out Christ, any and all of our works are not accepted.

The greatest thing one can do for any person, poor or rich, very popular or highly unpopular, it is to share Christ with them.

If I remember right, someone said something about receiving grace from observing the Lord's Supper. I do not see that taught in the Bible. What I see taught is that we observe the Lord's Supper in remembrance.

Lu 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.




We were not trying to earn salvation through our works, because we are saved by grace through faith. We were simply trying to love others as Jesus taught us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were not trying to earn salvation through our works, because we are saved by grace through faith. We were simply trying to love others as Jesus taught us.


You may not have been, yet many of them are. Did you know the number of us who believe one is saved by works is a very small minority, most believe one is saved by works, baptism, and or church membership.

And even if your one among them who believe one is saved by faith, your still part of a church that is not run as a New Testament Church described in the pages of the New Testament. Women in positions of authority over men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Methodist Church in our town, it does many wonderful works, yet denies God in its beliefs, its works, and how it runs its church.

Its so true, many today, even professing Christians, thinks wonderful works ='s salvation. Yet with out Christ, any and all of our works are not accepted.

The greatest thing one can do for any person, poor or rich, very popular or highly unpopular, it is to share Christ with them.

If I remember right, someone said something about receiving grace from observing the Lord's Supper. I do not see that taught in the Bible. What I see taught is that we observe the Lord's Supper in remembrance.

Lu 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

1Co 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.



Sounds much like our local Methodist church. Along with this they also teach one can lose their salvation and therefore one must "be good enough" to make it to heaven. That's not truly saved by grace through faith, though that's what they claim is how they get saved.

The actual teaching is more accurately that they claim to be saved by grace through faith yet they also teach one must meet some unknowable "standard of goodness" in order to maintain ones salvation. That's not scriptural but that is why some Methodists go out and try to perform "good works" and attempt to keep up an appearance of "goodness" so they may hopefully attain heaven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds much like our local Methodist church. Along with this they also teach one can lose their salvation and therefore one must "be good enough" to make it to heaven. That's not truly saved by grace through faith, though that's what they claim is how they get saved.

The actual teaching is more accurately that they claim to be saved by grace through faith yet they also teach one must meet some unknowable "standard of goodness" in order to maintain ones salvation. That's not scriptural but that is why some Methodists go out and try to perform "good works" and attempt to keep up an appearance of "goodness" so they may hopefully attain heaven.



That is true, yet they teach tolerance and acceptance of the sins of homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds much like our local Methodist church. Along with this they also teach one can lose their salvation and therefore one must "be good enough" to make it to heaven. That's not truly saved by grace through faith, though that's what they claim is how they get saved.

The actual teaching is more accurately that they claim to be saved by grace through faith yet they also teach one must meet some unknowable "standard of goodness" in order to maintain ones salvation. That's not scriptural but that is why some Methodists go out and try to perform "good works" and attempt to keep up an appearance of "goodness" so they may hopefully attain heaven.



I'm sorry if your local Methodist church was incorrect. I'm not sure if they are affiliated with the UMC, but I have taken confirmation classes and I promise they do not teach works based salvation.

Okay, I believe in love the sinner hate the sin. As far as homosexuality goes, Leviticus says that it is an abomination. Well guess what? It also says that I should go stone my mother for wearing clothes woven of different fabric. Oh and my uncle? He plants different crops side by side. So I guess i have to put him to death too. Perhaps you can advise me how to handle this situation according to Leviticus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if your local Methodist church was incorrect. I'm not sure if they are affiliated with the UMC, but I have taken confirmation classes and I promise they do not teach works based salvation.

Okay, I believe in love the sinner hate the sin. As far as homosexuality goes, Leviticus says that it is an abomination. Well guess what? It also says that I should go stone my mother for wearing clothes woven of different fabric. Oh and my uncle? He plants different crops side by side. So I guess i have to put him to death too. Perhaps you can advise me how to handle this situation according to Leviticus?



A little extreme aren't we CPR?
How many of those things you listed are an "abomination"? That is a mighty strong word; if God hates something enough to call it abomination, then He still hates it today! I am saying that, sure there are many things that we do not adhere to today, in the law, but we had better realize that an abomination is still abominable to our Lord; He hasn't changed his mind in the N.T. about hating sin, and it didn't pertain only to Israel if it was abominable. Are you justifying the condoning of homosexuality? it sure sounds like it. Even the N. T. deals with "effeminate" practices (1 Cor. 6:9 for one), but implied in several other places. To condone that which God condemns, especially from an ecclesiastical position is...well you figure it out.

We have too much of this sham love! We think that if we stand against sin, then we are "hate mongers" and that is exactly what the world wants us to think. Today we can hardly speak against homosexuality, lest we be ostracized at the least, and maybe even incarcerated! Love does the right thing; it obeys Gods Word, and aligns itself with it; love is often different from our meager concept of it. It contains chastisement, grace, judgment, instruction, and the whole realm of Christian graces, and yet we only wish to emphasize the "lovey-dovey" side of it. Sure we should help people, but is that all there is to our Christianity? is that what we were created for? The greatest need that man has is Jesus, and everything else is secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have taken confirmation classes and I promise they do not teach works based salvation.
They don't teach salvation at all. My former-Methodist wife says she was automatically enrolled in confirmation classes when she turned 12 years old. She didn't know why she was there, other than the fact that all 12-year-olds in her church went through the classes. She compared it to Sunday school. There was some Scriptural memorization and some definitions of Methodist theological terms. Once she completed the classes, she stood up in front of the church, answered a few questions with her confirmation classmates, and they were all pronounced ready for heaven.

When I got saved, my wife was at work. My IFB pastor returned later to present the gospel to her. During that conversation, my wife adamantly argued that she was already saved because she went through confirmation. Thankfully, she heard the real gospel a couple of years later and really got saved.

From the UMC's own webpage on confirmation:

Confirmation refers to the decision a person makes to respond to God's grace with intentional commitment, publicly reaffirming his or her baptismal vows before the congregation. Most confirmands are youth between the ages of eleven and fourteen, who have been nurtured in the church since their baptism as an infant or young child.
Almost sounds like you can't go through confirmation unless you were baptized as an infant. How can a pre-teen reaffirm vows they supposedly made as an infant when they couldn't even speak yet?

When persons who were baptized as infants are ready to profess their Christian faith, they participate in the service, which United Methodism now calls Confirmation. This occasion is not an entrance into Church membership, for this was accomplished through baptism.
This violates Biblical baptism. Baptism is to follow salvation, not be automatic just because you were "born" into a church. And how can a baby make a decision to join a church?

An infant who is baptized cannot make a personal profession of faith as a part of the sacrament. Therefore, as the young person is nurtured and matures so as to be able to respond to God's grace, conscious faith and intentional commitment are necessary. Such a person must come to claim the faith of the Church proclaimed in baptism as her or his own faith.
Because the Methodists rely so much on infant baptism, they are "confirming" these wet babies as saved without the babies making any sort of decision. Then, when children go through confirmation, they believe heaven is their destination. Again, no decision on the children's part; it's just part of their church upbringing.

Don't get me wrong. I think all new converts should go through some formal training into what it means to be a Christian. And I believe Methodists can be saved, because I'm met some, but not by the process the UMC prescribes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Excellent post Mitch)

I attend a funeral in a United Methodist Church, the one I attended as a child, when one of my uncles died a year or so ago. The pastor continually told us uncle was in heaven because he was a good man. Several times this pastor used the phrase "hidden religion" in claiming my uncle had a "hidden religion"; which is why I guess no one there would have thought he had any religion.

This UMC pastor spent a great deal of time telling us of the various reasons he believed uncle was in heaven but never once said it was because uncle was a born again believer in Christ Jesus.

Unfortunately this is all too common. Another funeral I attended about a year prior the pastor told us the deceased was in heaven basically because he was a good-hearted man who hugged several people at church when he attended and because he would do nice things for his family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Make no mistake about it, with Anglicanism there is no expectation of a dramatic conversion experience. One's faith is expected to spring out of sound instruction and reason, rather than emotionalism brought on by music or a charismatic evangalist. If a person cannot honestly stand before the congregation and confirm his or her faith in Christ, then they shouldn't. Sounds like several of the folks you know just did it to please their parents or church, which is as much their own fault as anyone elses. If it's not inside of you, then there is nothing to confirm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


I can confirm this from first hand experience with the Catholic Church. No doubt some might come to know and accept Jesus Christ as their savior but I gotta think the good majority did not (I was in that majority). Confirmation is more like pre-cursor to high school graduation. You get a new middle name, a huge party and money/gifts. Again, it could be different in other faiths or families but the good majority practices it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make no mistake about it, with Anglicanism there is no expectation of a dramatic conversion experience. One's faith is expected to spring out of sound instruction and reason, rather than emotionalism brought on by music or a charismatic evangalist. If a person cannot honestly stand before the congregation and confirm his or her faith in Christ, then they shouldn't. Sounds like several of the folks you know just did it to please their parents or church, which is as much their own fault as anyone elses. If it's not inside of you, then there is nothing to confirm.


I'm not saying anyone needs an emotional experience but one needs much more than a head knowledge experience. Having a head knowledge of confirmation doctrine without having been born again is no better than having an emotional experience without having been born again in Christ.

There are many professing Christians who have a great head knowledge of doctrine or the Word in general yet they have never accepted Christ as Scripture says is necessary for salvation. These people are just as lost as those who have an emotional experience yet are still without Christ. Both of these risk standing before Christ some day and proclaiming all they did for Him only to hear Christ tell them He never knew them and casts them away.

For many, the confirmation process to them is getting right with God, not actually be born again as Christ declares is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying baby born into a Methodist family is automatically a member of the Methodist church by sprinkling a little water on him/her? How can someone be a member of a local church without professing faith in Jesus Christ? And after confirmation classes, is the "comfirmand" re-baptized, according to Scripture? Scripture is clear that baptism is an outward sign of the inward conversion.

Again, from the UMC website:

Why Baptize Babies?
From the earliest times, children and infants were baptized and included in the church. As scriptural authority for this ancient tradition, some scholars cite Jesus’ words, “Let the little children come to me…for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs” (Mark 10:14). However, a more consistent argument is that baptism, as a means of grace, signifies God’s initiative in the process of salvation. John Wesley preached “prevenient grace,” the grace that works in our lives before we are aware of it, bringing us to faith. The baptism of children and their inclusion in the church before they can respond with their own confirmation of faith is a vivid and compelling witness to prevenient grace.

Baptism Is Forever
Because baptism is a sacrament of God’s grace and a covenant that God has initiated, it should not be repeated. However, God’s continuing and patient forgiveness, God’s prevenient grace, will prompt us to renew the commitment first made at our baptism. At such a time, instead of rebaptism, The United Methodist Church offers the ritual for the reaffirmation of baptismal vows, which implies that, while God remains faithful to God’s half of the covenant, we are not always faithful to our promises. Our half of the covenant is to confess Christ as our Savior, trust in his grace, serve him as Lord in the church, and carry out his mission against evil, injustice, and oppression.

I added the bold to highlight the error of Methodist baptism. Notice the Methodists take one statement Jesus said about children and turn it into something that is completely unscriptural, while ignoring what Scripture does say about baptism. The Methodist church is not following Scripture when it comes to baptism. Nowhere in Scripture does baptism come before professed faith.

Biblical baptism comes after a person accepts Jesus as Savior and repents of their sin. Then and only then are they to be baptized to announce to the world what they've done.

Matt 3:6 - And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:4 - John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized ...

Acts 2:41 - Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ...

Acts 8:12 - But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:13 - Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized ...

Acts 18:8 - And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.

Methodists are putting the proverbial cart before the horse by baptizing before salvation. I'm sorry, but I'm not confused at all. To claim Scriptual support for baptizing a baby who cannot profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is taking great liberties with God's word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying baby born into a Methodist family is automatically a member of the Methodist church by sprinkling a little water on him/her? How can someone be a member of a local church without professing faith in Jesus Christ? And after confirmation classes, is the "comfirmand" re-baptized, according to Scripture? Scripture is clear that baptism is an outward sign of the inward conversion.

Again, from the UMC website:


I added the bold to highlight the error of Methodist baptism. Notice the Methodists take one statement Jesus said about children and turn it into something that is completely unscriptural, while ignoring what Scripture does say about baptism. The Methodist church is not following Scripture when it comes to baptism. Nowhere in Scripture does baptism come before professed faith.

Biblical baptism comes after a person accepts Jesus as Savior and repents of their sin. Then and only then are they to be baptized to announce to the world what they've done.


Methodists are putting the proverbial cart before the horse by baptizing before salvation. I'm sorry, but I'm not confused at all. To claim Scriptual support for baptizing a baby who cannot profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is taking great liberties with God's word.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 46 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...