Posted on 06/16/2020 7:54:02 PM PDT by lightman
“...divide over trivial differences...”
_________________________
You put yourself in God’s place sir. Does God agree with you that these differences are trivial? I see from the wording of your comment that you trivialize the doctrine of water baptism. The structural and theological differences between Baptist Presbyterian and Methodist are also trivial in your estimation, but only because of your gross ignorance.
This proposed division that you speak of will happen when God Himself judges the world, and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
As a life-long Lutheran, I departed the ELCA back in 2004, when I realized that it was becoming a liberal cult.
I joined the LCMA and was very comfortable there. I believe I could also be comfortable in the new, conservative Methodist Church.
As liberals and homosexuals take over establishment churches, they lever Christ out of the churches. What is left is a cesspit of depravity, wrapped in a respectable wrapper.
Then it’s a editing problem (I get those too, in fact my motto as a writer is “the last edit you do is one edit too few”) because you quoted something and then appeared to disagree with it (“It isn’t.” indicates disagreeing).
“Yes, it isn’t.” would have been a form clearly agreeing with the quote.
/grammarfussbudget
As one of the many good examples, I'll follow up on baptism. I don't trivialize the important rite of baptism, just the emphasis on the quantity of water. I cannot imagine anyone thinking it's important to use just a sprinkle (as my church does). If other Christians who believe the Bible is the literal word of God consider immersion important, I'm more than happy to unite in one church with full immersion as part of that church than it is to keep a separate names on the two (or more) church communities.
Structural differences? Do we really care about the differences in how the clergy for a church are selected? Couldn't we meet, discuss what works and what doesn't, and come to a consensus on how that choice could be made? None of the major Protestant churches have a structure that is clearly wrong as I read scripture.
I'm more than happy to unite with the Baptist Church where my niece was baptized (and I know a whole lot about them), just not with a nearby woke social club - Presbyterian Church (USA) - that held a ceremony in front of the cross to celebrate the "union" of two men. Christians are facing pure evil, and those forces are on the move. I would love to unite God's church as much as possible, with the only limit being that we all follow God's Word rather than editing out and correcting what the Left considers God's mistakes.
Computer in the shop—don’t have any of my voluminous pinglists. If you have any umc lists that may supplement lightman’s, spread the word. This is a very hopeful essay.
I think the new church should be called the Wesleyan Revival.
I love the part of the essay dealing w seminaries, and there being opportunities for orthodox Wesleyan theologians. It’s what the UMC has been sorely lacking.
The problem is that those who are consciously trying to pull people away from Christ (as opposed to those who are simply cluelessly apostate) will act orthodox enough to get into orthodox congregations. Tares are social chameleons.
That is a good point. I forgot. I expect people to be honest, and I’m a slow learner when dealing with pure evil.
Thank you for your kind response which was decent and honorable and allows the discussion to proceed. You are a credit to the forum here, thanks.
You cannot maintain that the amount of water is trivial and maintain the importance of the rite. If, as the Baptist church believes, the rite, like Communion, is purely symbolic, then the mode of Baptism picturing His death burial and resurrection is as important as the rite itself. IIRC it was Chuck Colson who wrote about having communion on the beach using pizza and colas (cannot confirm this). Pat Boone baptized people at his home swimming pool. Could he have spit on his fingers and touched someone’s forehead and called it baptism?
What if a church decided that the water really needed to be mixed with cow’s blood and poured on a person’s naked ribs? I say these things to awaken you to the realization that you do indeed have ideas about modes of baptism. Perhaps you would say that there must be some religious something or other that has something or other to do with water or something, then you must see that that itself is a religious belief that is not trivial at all.
(To say that the rite conveys grace in some way is the farthest thing from trivial that I can conceive. To say that baptism is “essential” for salvation as does the church of Christ is the farthest thing from trivial that I can conceive. You will agree that these doctrines are not trivial, but will say that the amount of water is trivial.)
Sprinkling is of course connected with infant baptism. The RC church claims that when they sprinkle an infant that it washes away original sin. To die unbaptized by the RC church is to go to Hell if adult or to limbo if a child. The mode is intimately connected to the doctrine behind it. Furthermore their claim to final authority is crucial to their use of sprinkling. If that church has the final say, or if you do my FRiend, then the Scripture does not, and that is also the most untrivial thing.
The Presbyterian church holds baptism to be the NT counterpart to circumcision, therefore it is completely unnecessary to reserve it for believers! To them, or at least to some of them, baptizing an infant is no issue at all, as to them the only issue is unconditional election so the fact or mode of baptism is complete trivial. A Presby said that sprinkling children of believing parents is “believer’s baptism” because Paul said to the Phillipian jailer, “...and thy house.” Those kids are elect therefore they are believers even if they aren’t believers yet.
BTW in passing, it would be unethical for you to unite with a Baptist church while holding your position which is contrary to the historic Baptist faith, and I know you would never do that and that is not what you meant by what you said.
As to church government, the Baptist view of congregational government is directly connected to the priesthood of the believer and the perspicuity of the Word of God which are the two foundational doctrines of the Baptist faith. Not trivial at all. Your idea of getting together to discuss is a Baptist idea. The Presbyterians would not let you have any say unless you were an elder. The Methodists will choose your leader for you whether you like it or not. Are you talking about a church council to decide this? That was done and the decision was that there is no church except the Roman Catholic Church!
You may have the last word and I am out on your final. I do not meant to correct you, I just think the idea you expressed should be countered. You have many good things to say and I thank you for that.
Thanks. That is very helpful.
Just taking the selection of leadership, I have served several times and for extended periods on the committees that deals with new ministers for our church (long ago as a Presbyterian and now as a Methodist, with the change due to the Presbyterian Church leaving scripture behind). I've even taught our adult classes on what it means to be Methodist. Nowhere have I seen even a hint that our way of choosing a new minister is biblical or mandatory. It's just what we do, and we could certainly change that by a simple vote. Of course, we're Methodist and many of us think we could change whether homosexuality is okay by a simple vote. The idea that internal traditions can change does does not bother me at all. The idea that those changes can include rejecting scripture is a major issue.
The other points I'll address in research, prayer, and thought. I could chat more, but this is not the time. The bottom line is that I do not approve of changing, adding to, or deleting the words of scripture unless (as happened with Jesus) God tells us directly. So long as two churches follow that simple rule, I think we can and should work together more closely.
I am not certain what will come out of the covid shutdown and reschedule for this denomination.
I sense a different level of energy. Perhaps it’s just enthusiasm on the shelf until a later date. My fear is that it’s apathy.
As always, time will tell.
You hit that nail on the head—where it all went wrong. I wonder how long ago the first Methodist conference crossed that line. I was raised Methodist Episcopal, which was a solidly Biblical church until it merged ito become the UMC in the mid-60s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.