Understanding Non-Catholic Religious Beliefs Better

[Izdaari]

I don’t have an easy answer to the OP’s question, but I’ll stick around and answer questions if that’ll be of any help.

I belong to an Assemblies of God church (mainstream Pentecostal), but I consider myself a non-denominational evangelical, not especially conservative or liberal, but overall moderate. My personal theology is probably about 1/3 Pentecostal, 1/3 Lutheran and 1/3 Anglican. I like liturgical services, at least as a change of pace, and I’m fine with visiting RC and EO churches, as they are my brothers in Christ, despite our differences.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

My mother grew up southern Baptist and from what I understand from her, it’s just cultural differences between the south and the north. I know they weren’t allowed to dance or drink or listen to certain kinds of music and they had a ton of Bible studies throughout the week and other activities to keep them on the ‘straight and narrow’ but that’s about the extent of my knowledge of her church. I was raised in a Presbyterian church and their big thing is to have committees and sessions and elect elders and deacons from within the congregation, who then go on to select the minister for the church. Theologically, my church was certainly not ultra-conservative but I wouldn’t call us liberal either. I don’t know if you’re looking for more specific info than that…?

As for worshiping with other protestants, I would say it’s very easy for many ‘mainline’ protestants to switch between churches, depending on location, ministers, youth groups, etc. But beyond that I think I personally would have trouble participating in some other more ‘radical’ (no offense intended) churches just because I wasn’t raised that way or because the beliefs are too different.

The baptist ministers that lived in the south split with the northern baptist due to slavery.
In the mid 1800’s many of the southern baptist ministers had their own slaves and did not want to give them up. This is when the S.B.C. was formed. For the next hundred yrs or so much of the K.K.K. was made up of southern baptist ministers and followers!

Just thought i’d through that out there…

Matthew

 

[RevNeal]

That would seem to exclude Lutheran and most Anglican/Episcopalian churches. I would say Methodist but AFAIK they also believe in the real presence of Christ but there is a more open view among the congregates. I am going out on a limb and am going to guess… Methodist.

God bless

That’s a possibility, although … as you say … in the UMC we affirm the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of Holy Communion and are – officially – clear that it is in no way to be understood as just being a symbolic presence. However, it should also be remembered that, in the past, UM clergy have not always taught that this is what we believe. I took part in the research for our formal statement on Holy Communion (“This Holy Mystery”), the sad truth is that for at least half of the 20th Century one could find Methodist clergy who would say that Communion was just symbolic. Add to that the problem of what laity erroneously believed and taught (thanks to poor teaching from the clergy) and the problem could be easily compounded.

One further problem with identifying the denominational group as being “Methodist” would be the identification of 3 Sacraments. The UMC has always been clear that we understand there to be 2 Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion) and that Confirmation is not a separate Sacrament but the completion of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. We affirm the other RC Sacraments as being sacramental in nature, and certainly means of grace, but we don’t classify them as being Sacraments.

It could be that the poster’s experience was in a minor sect of the Methodist movement – Southern Methodist, Free Methodist, or some other related Wesleyan or Holiness movement – and not part of the United Methodist Church or its precursor denominations.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

That’s a possibility, although … as you say … in the UMC we affirm the Real Presence of Jesus in the Sacrament of Holy Communion and are – officially – clear that it is in no way to be understood as just being a symbolic presence. However, it should also be remembered that, in the past, UM clergy have not always taught that this is what we believe. I took part in the research for our formal statement on Holy Communion (“This Holy Mystery”), the sad truth is that for at least half of the 20th Century one could find Methodist clergy who would say that Communion was just symbolic. Add to that the problem of what laity erroneously believed and taught (thanks to poor teaching from the clergy) and the problem could be easily compounded.

One further problem with identifying the denominational group as being “Methodist” would be the identification of 3 Sacraments. The UMC has always been clear that we understand there to be 2 Sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion) and that Confirmation is not a separate Sacrament but the completion of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. We affirm the other RC Sacraments as being sacramental in nature, and certainly means of grace, but we don’t classify them as being Sacraments.

It could be that the poster’s experience was in a minor sect of the Methodist movement – Southern Methodist, Free Methodist, or some other related Wesleyan or Holiness movement – and not part of the United Methodist Church or its precursor denominations.

I wait with anticipation for the answer. Presbyterian perhaps? Do they speak of sacraments?

God bless

 

[TriuneUnity]

I wait with anticipation for the answer. Presbyterian perhaps? Do they speak of sacraments?

God bless

Yeah…they use the term sacraments. I believe eureka stated on another thread that he/she was Presbyterian.

 

[eureka525]

I wait with anticipation for the answer. Presbyterian perhaps? Do they speak of sacraments?

God bless

Presbyterian indeed. Although I have to make a correction, Confirmation is not considered a sacrament in our church, so there are only two recognized- Communion and Baptism.

Simply speaking as a layperson who is looking into converting, I have much to learn (and to re-learn!)…

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Presbyterian indeed. Although I have to make a correction, Confirmation is not considered a sacrament in our church, so there are only two recognized- Communion and Baptism.

Knowing that and what RevNeal had said that would have strengthened my resolve that you were Methodist. I will take your word for it though that you are not

God bless

 

[eureka525]

Knowing that and what RevNeal had said that would have strengthened my resolve that you were Methodist. I will take your word for it though that you are not

God bless

Haha, well if it makes you feel better there are many people in my church who have come from Methodist churches or left for Methodist churches. Can’t speak to Methodist beliefs but I guess they must not be too different from one another

 

[benidict]

The baptist ministers that lived in the south split with the northern baptist due to slavery.
In the mid 1800’s many of the southern baptist ministers had their own slaves and did not want to give them up. This is when the S.B.C. was formed. For the next hundred yrs or so much of the K.K.K. was made up of southern baptist ministers and followers!

Just thought i’d through that out there…

Matthew