I've enjoyed reading Wesley's writings, but I'm struggling to find a decent account of Methodist systematics. Can anyone suggest anything notably Methodist in flavour or should I just pick up something by a mildly dissident Anglican?

I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same. This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created. The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion. Here are some of the references I found: From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ: >“He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.” From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote: >“Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant... We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9: >"Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;” I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection. However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael. This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine. I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel. The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

The question is: According to Methodism, does God have a soul? Understandably, the answer will have to incorporate the Methodist definition of 'soul' and, if yes, whether it differs from the 'human soul'. I apologize for the phrasing of the 'title'. The original was being wrongly resisted as a duplicate by the bot. Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103593/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103592/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103581/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103596/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103598/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103599/47250 , https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/103600/47250

In an attempt to define Protestantism one answer [suggested the following criteria](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/39419/is-non-catholic-non-orthodox-modern-western-denomination-an-ok-definition-of-p) : - an acceptance of the old ecumenical creeds - a focus on the Bible - a rejection of salvation by works - a rejection of the supreme authority of the Catholic Church - a focus on personal response to the gospel It strikes me that this excludes several important denominations that are considered Protestant in everyday parlance. Perhaps the most important is Methodism. The United Methodist Church [defines itself](https://um-insight.net/in-the-church/practicing-faith/omitting-hell-it-s-traditional/) as a "non-creedal" denomination. > Unlike some churches that require affirmation of a strict list of > beliefs as a condition of membership, The United Methodist Church is > not a creedal church... Church founder, John Wesley himself did not > agree with a historic (Athanasian) creed, because he disliked its > emphasis on condemning people to hell. Methodists do use the Nicaean Creed in some of their liturgies, but ministers and members are not required to affirm this or any other of the old ecumenical creeds. Indeed, as the above statement states, Wesley himself did not even agree with the Athanasian Creed let alone affirmations of faith made by the Ecumenical Councils. Those authorities condemned as heretics those who disagreed with their doctrines, yet [Wesley stated](https://johnmeunier.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/who-wesley-would-send-to-hell/) : > I have no authority from the word of God “to judge those that are > without;” (1 Corinthians 5:12) nor do I conceive that any man living > has a right to sentence all the heathen and Mahometan world to > damnation. It is far better to leave them to Him that made them, and > who is ‘the Father of the spirits of all flesh;’ who is the God of the > Heathens as well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he > hath made. Wesley and his followers have also been criticized by Calvinist writers of preaching "works righteousness," which would mean they fail to conform with another one of the criteria listed above. This criticism, however, is not accepted by Methodists themselves, while its decision not to require adherence to the historical creeds is clear. That being the case, should Methodism be excluded from the category of Protestantism?

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

Im Methodist..my mom is sanctified..I don't understand the Holy Spirit..it scares me..she preaches over me and prays over me like I'm here guinea pig, instead of getting behind the pulpit..I can't live my life comfortably because every move I make she says I'm going to hell or being disobedient and I'm 42 years old. When she prays it feels like someone is putting voodoo on me..it's very uncomfortable. I feel like she's harassing me..how can I make her stop throwing her religion on me without my permission

There are some that seem to say that he doesn't and then some seems to say that he does (p.19) so I wonder what is going on here. I understand that there are different kinds of ways to explain how guilt is imputed (realist vs federal, etc) but regardless, did John Wesley believe in imputation of guilt? If the answer is yes, I have no further question. But *if the answer is **no***, then what do Wesleyans mean when they say baptism 'cleansed the guilt of original sin'? Links and references are appreciated!

In the news reports swirling around the 2019 General Conference of the United Methodist Church, something struck me as odd – there were "lay delegates" among the 800 delegates able to vote on the future direction of the denomination. For example, NPR reported: > Also speaking against the plan was Nancy Denardo, a lay delegate of western Pennsylvania ([source](https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/698188343/united-methodist-church-votes-to-keep-bans-on-same-sex-weddings-lgbtq-clergy)) Methodism was born out of the Church of England, which has an "episcopal" system of government – churches are led by priests and overseen by bishops. It's a more hierarchical structure than Presbyterianism, for example, where churches are led by a group of elders and each church is overseen by all the elders in a particular region. But at least in my Presbyterian denomination, there is no concept of "lay delegates" at the general assembly – the only people who can vote are those who have been ordained as an elder/pastor. Thus it seems odd to me that the Methodists – more hierarchical than Presbyterians – would allow the laity to vote in their general assemblies. From my cursory research on Wikipedia, it sounds like the system today is not the way it was from the beginning – apparently the laity were denied voting rights at the 1792 General Conference, and a faction split from the church when laity were not given voting powers in the 1820s ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Methodist_Episcopal_Church&oldid=846221567#Growth,_the_first_General_Conference,_and_the_O 'Kelly_Schism_(1785%E2%80%931792))). Thus my question is – **when did the UMC, or its predecessor denominations, first allow laity to vote in its general conferences?** By predecessor denominations, I mean the [Methodist Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Church_(USA)) (1939–1968), the [Methodist Episcopal Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Episcopal_Church) (1784–1939), and the [Methodist Episcopal Church, South](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodist_Episcopal_Church,_South) (1844–1939).

The Guardian reports: > [The UK Methodist Conference] also voted to recognise, accept, and celebrate the love > and commitment of unmarried cohabiting couples. This statement is a little unclear to me, as cohabiting couples could include celibate cohabiting couples (like gay, partnered priests in the C of E). Does the UK Methodist conference now endorse and celebrate couples who are sexually active outside of marriage?

John Wesley published a modified Book of Common Prayer under the name Sunday Service of the Methodists , in which he says in the preface: > I believe there is no Liturgy in the world, either in ancient or modern language, which breathes more of a solid, scriptural, rational piety, than the Common Prayer of the Church of England. And though the main of it was compiled considerably more than two hundred years ago, yet is the language of it not only pure, but strong and elegant, in the highest degree. > > Little alteration is made in the following edition of it, except in the under-mentioned instances: > > 1. Most of the holy-days (so called) are omitted, as at present answering no valuable end. > > 2. The service of the LORD's DAY, the length of which has been often complained of, is considerably shortened. > > 3. Some sentences in the offices of Baptism, and for the Burial of the Dead, are omitted; and, > > ***4. Many Psalms left out, and many parts of the others, as being highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation.*** > > JOHN WESLEY. > > Bristol, Sept. 9, 1784. Which Psalms did he leave out, and which parts of others for being "highly improper," and why are/were they considered "highly improper for the mouths of a Christian Congregation"? Are these same Psalms and parts of Psalms still avoided by Methodists today in their congregational worship?

I don't trust the idea of original sin being inherited. However, that does raise another question: If children are innocent before they are able to differentiate between good and evil, is it possible that one can remain sinless until they die? How do Methodists deal with this?

In 1778, John Wesley published his *Thoughts upon Slavery*, where he wrote: >The variety of ways that slavery appears make it almost impossible to convey a just notion of it ... First in what manner are they procured? Part of them by fraud ... But far more have been procured by force. The Christians landing upon their coasts, seized as many of them as they could find - men, women and children - and transported them to America ... It was some time before the Europeans found a more compendious way of procuring them: by prevailing upon them to make war in each other and sell their prisoners. Till then they seldom had any wars, all was peace and quiet. But the white man taught them drunkeness and avarice and hired them to sell one another. Nay, by this means even their kings are induced to sell their subjects ... As for the punishments that are inflicted upon them, say Sir Hans Sloan, some are gelded, others have half a foot chopped off ... others cut off an ear, and constrain them to broil and eat them ... > >How can Britons can so readily admit a change in their disposition and sentiments as to practise in America what they abhorred and detested in Britain can be accounted for no other principle than of being the natural effect of slave-keeping which as the celebrated Montesquieu observes 'insensibly accustoms those who are in the practise of it, to want all moral virtues, to become haughty, hasty, hard-hearted, passionate, voluptuous and cruel.' More, forty years earlier when he had been in the United States with his brother on missionary work in 1737-38 he recorded in his journal the barbaric treatment that: >daily practise upon their fellow creatures [inclufing whipping, driving nails through their ears and drawing teeth] ... even giving a white child a slave of his own to tyrannise ... [describing them] as shocking instances of diabolical cruelty Given the interest that Britain had in maintaining the slave trade it's not suprising to discover that whenever Wesley preached against the slavery trade he put his life at considerable risk. For example, when he preached in Bristol, one of the foremost slave-trading ports in Britain, a disturbance broke out. **Q. Given this, what compelled Wesley to take on slavery and become one of the early adopters of abolition?** **Moreover, given the shocking scenes of 'diabolical cruelty' he saw in the then slave owning United States why did it take so long to take up the cause?** **Finally, how significant was his preaching in the context of the abolitionist movement - my own understanding - from being told this at school - was that Wilberforce was the main force behind it**

In one of his last letters to Wilberforce, John Wesley wrote in 1791: >Dear Sir, > >Unless the divine power has raised you to be as *Athanasius contra Mundum*, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing the inexcreble villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and the devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O, be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it. > >... > >That He who has guided you from youth up may continue to strengthen you in this and all things, is the prayer of, dear sir, > >Your affectionate servant, John Wesley **Q. In this letter what is the meaning and significance of the phrase 'Athanasius contra Mundum' in the context of his (and Wilberforces) anti-slavery crusade?**

In 1964, Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler outlined the [Wesleyan Quadrilateral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral) in his introduction to John Wesley's anthology of works. This establishes a hermeneutic framework in which truth, revelation and so forth are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture and Tradition, reason and Experience. Similarly, Jewish Scholarship has a similar framework, [PaRDeS,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)#Remez) an acronym formed from the following hermeneutic approaches: > * Peshat (פְּשָׁט‎) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning. > * Remez (רֶמֶז‎) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense. > * Derash (דְּרַשׁ‎) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences. > * Sod (סוֹד‎) (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation. Have there been any Weslyan theologians and scholars that have sought to compare and equate the two frameworks and methodologies.

[Prima Scriptura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura) is the doctrine that > canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures. (Wikipedia) It is said to be in contrast to Sola Scriptura, but it has the same meaning as all the explanations of Sola Scriptura I've ever heard (see [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/77910/6071) for a brief summary), so I'm not sure why it's portrayed as being in contrast. It also seems to be used both by Methodists and Catholics. What is the origin of Prima Scriptura? Who first developed it: Methodists, Catholics, or someone else? Was it defined in contrast to Sola Scriptura, and if so, how was Sola Scriptura understood by those who defined Prima Scriptura? Or was it coined as a clearer alternative to Sola Scriptura in the hope it would be misunderstood less (like Definite Atonement instead of Limited Atonement), and only afterwards came to be thought of as different to Sola Scriptura?

Reverend Paul Kottke, of the United Methodist Church, has preached that Christian faith and science, including Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, are not incompatible. This seems to be in accord with the views of other denominations such as the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, but what is the official position of the United Methodist Church. Wikipedia ranks the United Methodist Church as the third largest Christian denomination in the United States, and the largest denomination within the wider Methodist movement, worldwide.

>36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left. > >42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. > >45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, ‘My master is staying away a long time,’ 49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. 50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. 51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. From a Baptist or Methodist perspective, is this Jesus talking about Revelation or his death? I have taken many time reading over this but I cannot find a good answer. Also is it a coincidence that these verses come right after a section about the end of times?

So today, I found a sign for a "Evangelical Methodist Church." In light of the recent split in the Methodist denomination, it has me wondering: are they using "Evangelical" here to say which side of the split they are choosing, or does it not really mean anything related to that? Or are all Methodists "Evangelical"?

>A gay pride rainbow flag flies along with the U.S. flag in front of the Asbury United Methodist Church in Prairie Village, Kan., on April 19, 2019. United Methodist Church leaders are proposing the creation of a separate division that would let more traditional denominations break away because of the disagreement with churches over the UMC’s official stance on gay marriage. AP FILE. Story here What arguments do traditional UMC leaders make for separating themselves from the church over its stance on gay marriage?

A Methodist Church has changed from regular grape juice to white grape juice to keep stains from the carpet. Is this a valid Methodist traditional usage? Are there any historical sources explaining this usage?