r/methodism

I go to smaller sized Baptist church that has a toned down worship style. I am descended from the Wesley family who helped create the Methodist church and who were deeply involved as Anglicans. My grandparents were Methodist and I went to their Methodist church often and also went to an Anglican church for a few months. I also went to Westminister Abbey in London two years ago, and it was the coolest Anglican church I have been in. I would probably be Methodist or Anglican if I weren't Baptist. I am a credobaptist, but infant baptism isn't a hill I would die on or anything - I see some understanding for paedobaptism in scripture, but I'm not convinced on the arguments and the idea of regenerative grace being available through it.

I am Reformed leaning and in terms of Reformed theology, the idea that limited atonement is the biggest hurdle for me to join one makes sense, at least in regard to Confessional Reformed churches, like Presbyterians or Reformed Baptists. But historically, the Reformed movement has also had some agreement with unlimited atonement (Christ died for all, but none would come to him, so God used unconditional election and irresistible grace to call the elect), or some moderate version of limited atonement (Christ's death is sufficient for all, efficient for the elect). Theologians like John Davenant, a Reformed Anglican at the Synod of Dort, and Zacharias Ursinus who helped formulate the Heidelburg Cathecism held to universal atonement. Moises Amyraut had his own distinct variant of Calvinism called Amyraldism that affirmed single predestination and universal atonement while maintaining the Deterministic framework of Calvinism. Even John Calvin, who wrote commentaries on John 3:16 and Romans 5:15-19, seemed to affirm universal atonement. So the historical Reformed churches, and Reformed Anglican churches especially, tend to heed towards a significant form of agreement with universal atonement with some capacity.

I would also consider myself very Reformed leaning Baptist in regard to my theology regarding covenants and I disagree with Dispensationalism and Premillenialism (which unfortunately is very prominent in Southern Baptist churches), and I reject that communion is just a symbol, I genuinely think Christ is spiritually present, which I know Methodists and Anglicans tend to agree with also. I also affirm all of TULIP minus limited atonement. Reformed churches are also incredibly gifted with their expository preaching, which I know is something Methodists and other Protestants can desire, but Baptist churches tend to fall into that category, it just depends which one.

But for me I reject the Calvinistic framework for understanding sovereignty and free will, as I reject Determinism since I'm a Molinist, which is tied to the Jesuit movement. I believe God orchestrates history like the Calvinists, and deny that God simply looks through time like Arminians, but I disagree that every human choice is rooted in God's decreed will. I believe God orchestrates middle knowledge of every human choice and then molds history to fit His will without compromising human free will. So I often am seen as a "Calminian" as I affirm aspects of both sides of the initial Reformed debate. I could easily attend an Arminian approaching church or a Calvinist leaning church, because my view of God's sovereignty and free will lines right down the middle of the two.

I feel so stuck in regards to denominations that I agree with, because it seems like I agree with so much Protestant theology that I can't seem to figure out which denomination I seem closest to, and yet I feel emotionally compelled to the Methodist and Anglican movements because of my grandparents and family ancestry.

Any thoughts on which church to look for?

I don’t believe it’s soul sleep or everyone goes to heaven, I believe unbelievers will be in eternal conscious torment. Most UMC seem super liberal and reject this doctrine.

I watched the first episode on PBS.org . Many churches in the US are dealing with decline. While they have not focused on an Episcopal church yet, they did include Rev. Dr. Judy Fentress-Williams from the Virginia Theological Seminary.

I'm curious if anyone has watched it and what did they think of it?

https://www.pbs.org/video/reading-the-signs-XuTXtq/

I grew up in a congregational Methodist church in the southern U.S., we always used the cokesbury.

Hieronymus Emser's 1523 book against Luther's German New Testament says: "Luther perverts the daily prayer, the Our Father, in three or four places." His list:

"First, he turns the first two words right round, and does not translate them as they stand in the Gospel and as we Germans have prayed for more than a thousand years, 'Vater unser' (Father our), but 'unser Vater' (our Father)."

"Second, he leaves out the words 'who art' altogether, which the Greek and Latin texts both contain alike."

"Third, he changes the word panem supersubstantialem ('supersubstantial bread') into quotidianum ('daily')."

"Fourth, he adds a clause at the end that our text does not have and that has never been in use among us, namely 'for thine is the kingdom, the power and the holiness, for ever, amen.'" (Emser, 1523)

Luther's 1522 New Testament does read "Vnser vater ynn dem hymel" and ends "denn, deyn ist das reych, vnd die krafft, vnnd die herlickeyt in ewickeyt. Amen." The German word there is herlickeyt, usually glory, which Emser's translated quote renders "holiness." On the last point, the ending is in the Byzantine Greek manuscript tradition and not in the Latin Vulgate that Emser was reading, so he is comparing Luther's Greek-based German to a Latin text, not catching an invention.

Which of the four changes does your own church's wording still show?