Which Bible is used in the Methodist Church? How is their belief different from that of Baptist faith?

Answer 1

Methodists use the standard Protestant Bible as delineated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. The Baptists do as well.

In the US, where English is spoken, the translations vary and all are at times utilized.


EDIT: The Living Bible is not a translation. It is a paraphrasing of the King James version of the Bible. If you actually want to get to the text, of the Bible, the Living Bible is a bad example. It is the Bible interpreted as if it were written by modern American evangelicals.

Answer 2

There used to be a lot less dividing the Methodists and Baptists.

The Methodists are Protestants whose roots are partially traced to a deal struck between the Waldensians and Martin Luther in Germany in 1525. This caused a permanent divide in the Waldensian ranks. They submitted to his authority for protection, and they readily adopted baptism for sprinkling and a Protestant faith.

The Baptists of America are connected to the Albigenses who immigrated to Holland in the 1300's to escape the Crusades against them. They maintain total immersion for Baptism, and remained separate from Protestantism until the last 150 years.

Now many Baptists are like the Waldensians of 1525 and are resigning themselves to Protestant attitudes and faith. They buy into blatant Jesuit Propaganda and actually believe they are Protestants.

Long long ago both preached Jesus Christ alone for Salvation. They talked about His precious blood that washed away our sins. Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and Man. He Name alone can bring Salvation to the Soul and forgiveness for Sin.

The New Testament used to play a very important role in both churches. But in the last generation the Methodist Church has allowed tradition and liberal theology to sweep it from its roots in the Bible. Some Baptists have already started down this slippery slope.

Answer 3

It is the Living Bible. Very similar to Baptist, but I would say that this version of the Bible is simplified...taking out much of the old English terminology.

Answer 4

King James bible and Methodist are basically an off shoot of Catholicism.

Answer 5

What's the difference between Baptists and Methodists? Good question. I don't think you'll find many Baptists or Methodists who could answer it.

Answer 6

A number orf translations are acceptable there.

Differences between Methodists and Baptists are almost imperceptible, other than between them. And irrelevant to anybody (except a small % of them).

Answer 7

They differ in religious tenets and order of service. They use the King James Version.

Answer 8

King James version when I was there.
Rose P.

Answer 9

I have been told by a Catholic that they have their own Bible.

Answer 10

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/awego

• The Catholics have abandoned the Bible as an Authority, but they try to use it as a tool of manipulation over others. The Protestants got fed up with this manipulation, and called the Catholics on it 500 years ago. Martin Luther for example offered the non-catholics protection from persecution of they would join him, which many did in 1525. The non-catholic non-protestant churches have always been very different from Rome. They truly study and follow the teaching of the Bible. They have had respect their neighbors for their lifestyles as compared to the Catholics, but the scorn and persecution of the religious because of the contrast. Three Eras of Church History Genuine Church History is a very simple and extremely complex subject at the same time. Era I In a nutshell there was one group of churches from A.D. 44 to A.D. 250. Believers began to use adjectives to describe themselves as differences arose. Monatists, Catholic/Universal belief, Christians, Brothers, Church of Christ, Churches of God, etc... Era II From 250 to 1179 there was one main division and a development of 2 basic types of local assemblies: The Lapsii (the compromisers with pagans who later would join the government) The Cathari (who remained autonomous Bible Believing Churches) Era III From 1179 to the Present The Lapsii of old: Basically the government churches known today as Catholics, Orthodox, and Nestorians. o Key Tennants: § Baptism of Infants, Sprinkling, § Mary Worship/Image Worship, § Hierarchy over all local assemblies, § Father of Ecumenical Movement § Absolute Authority of the Church & her leadership. The Reformed Lapsii: This is a merge between Cathari & Lapsii. Peter Waldo's Waldensians of N. Italy, South Carolina & Argentina, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Mennonites, Amish. o Key Tennant: § Various modes of Baptism, some infants baptized, (sprinklers, baptize babies, § women preachers). § Heirarchy over local assemblies, § Call themselves Protestants, Buy into Ecumenical Movement § Combined Authority of Church & Bible. The Cathari: Welsh Believers, Anabaptists, Valdese, Bogomols, Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Culdee, Baptists, Waldensians, and any who hold to historic "Baptist" doctrines & Practices. o Key Tennant: § Baptism by immersion of professors only, § Jesus is only authority over the churches autonomy of local church, § Believe in individual local churches that answer to God uniquely. § Rejection of Ecumenical Ideology § absolute authority of Bible. What can an Orange Tree teach us about Church History? A skeptic is someone who does not believe a claim but seeks to factually disprove it. In the end a Skeptic is interested in the truth and open to changing his or her mind once the truth is revealed. A critic on the other hand is someone who is not interested in the facts. A critic already has made up his mind. He will twist, turn, accuse, scoff, ridicule, and forever cast doubt with an unbridled desire to defame. Thomas Armitage in 1886 wrote a two volume "History of the Baptists". As noted in the forward he was skeptical of the preservation of the churches separate from the Protestants. Sadly, he simply accepts what Catholic and Protestant authors wrote at face value. In doing so her repeats the myth of Baptist Protestantism sows the seeds of destruction in the minds of many Baptists. If you have ever taken the time to read Catholic and Protestant histories then you know that they are CRITICS. Real Church History The Baptists of America descended from those who sought out godly baptism in Holland in the 1630's from those who were pure in their faith. Who were the believers in Holland? They are called the pure or Cathari by those who wrote the Canons against them in the 4th & 12th centuries Hailing from France these believers were called Albigenses by the Pope who sought to destroy them in the 13th century. By the Protestants of the 16th century they are called Anabaptists. Those who associate them with the old faith in Northern Italy call them Waldensians in the past four centuries. This connection between the churches in London, Holland, and Rhode Island in the 1630's & 40's is a very well documented fact. The Baptism by Immersion that Mr. Richard Blount submitted to and then brought with him to London is rooted very deep in Church History. How deep? This baptism that Mr. Blount received in Holland was the Baptism given by the Apostles at Jesus' instruction. Then they were labeled Christians. Then they called themselves the pure. "Purity" as a name evolved into Cathari & Paulicians in Catholic documents. The Popes and Inquisitors used many synonyms for them: Cathari, Paulicians, Albigenses and Waldensians. The upstart Protestants gave them the 3rd century title of Anabaptists (it became fashionable again in the 16th century). So, whatever historical label you choose to use for them, know this: these Bible believers gave Baptism to Richard Blount. Richard Blount baptized what true historians recognize as the first "Baptist" congregation in England that fits the modern day definition of a Baptist Church. Critics always deny this, but in their denial they show open bias and flawed definitions. Skeptics are ultimately convinced by the weight of evidence that Richard Blount's Baptism was the Baptism of the Apostles. The great news is that Richard Blount is just one concrete link. It says nothing about the Welsh churches that had been hiding in the hills for 1200 years. They retreated there in the 7th century after 1,000 of their pastors were slaughtered by Catholics in a single meeting. On that day the Gates of Hell were raging against Christ's Body. The Welsh and Baptists of London became aware of each other and eventually joined in fellowship in the 18th century in England when persecution had waned. Church History is typically taught from the standpoint of some kind of man-made organization. The Creator is a Biologist at heart. He creates living organisms not dead organizations. Therefore, in order to understand the essence of the local church and its preservation, a person must have an elementary understanding of trees, for example. Trees grow, get diseases, die, are cut for wood, produce seeds, and are transplanted. But there is one biological fact that cannot be denied. In order to have an Orange tree, I need to get something from a pre-existing orange tree. It can be a piece of fruit with seeds in it, seeds, a branch or a seedling, but one must have part of an Orange Tree in order to see another one grow. No one would deny that there is a ‘succession' of Orange Trees on the planet today. But many deny that there is a ‘succession' of pure churches from the time of Christ. The logic and laws of nature make succession an undeniable fact that needs to be reaccepted, just like Creation, by those whose faith has decreased in modern times. The problem is this, many authors, historians, and preachers today by their teaching of history deny the promise Jesus Christ made about His bride. Just as He preserved the Word, so did He preserve His Body. It is pure and still preparing for the Wedding Feast. A Skeptic following a Critic is as the blind leading the blind. A simple Orange tree teaches us that Baptist Churches are descended in a long line of faith from the time Jesus Christ. I know this post was long, but I wanted you to have the chance to read a different viewpoint. God bless.