Please explain these types of Christian


What is the history of these types of Christian and what exactly do they believe?

Methodists, Evangilical, Episcopal,Independent, Pentecostal,Salvation Army,Jehovahs Witness, Church of God, Church of Christ.

I know hardly anything reguarding these Demonitions.Thanks to anyone who tells me about any of them.


Try wiki



My dear friend Montalban is right, wikipedia is a useful resource:


The ultimate truth about Jesus is:
(Firstly), JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave anything revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of written stone tablets as was in case of Moses, (Secondly) or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel, he died natural and peaceful death in Kashmir, India.
Jesus left nothing behind authenticated by him, in possession of the Church.
We do respect the NTGospels which (Thirdly) have account of Jesus life, but it does not have much utility for a non-Catholic, a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each event for truth on merit.


you might be interested in searching here with the name of any of these denominations, for threads by people who are members or used to be members. otherwise just search the web for “official” websites. a good starting point might be magazines such as Christianity Today or Christian Post. A non-Christian is not the best source of reliable information about Christian denominations, scripture and beliefs.


Here is a start


Well, here are a few of them (I won’t promise to get through them all).

Methodists originated as a renewal movement within the state Church of England (the adjective for which is “Anglican”) in the 18th century. In England the Methodists did not become an independent church until after the founder, John Wesley, was dead (he did not want to leave the Church of England). In America, though, Wesley authorized the formation of an independent church, because there were a lot of unchurched people and the future of Anglicanism was really uncertain after the American Revolution. (Eventually the Anglicans in the U.S. did get their act together and form the Episcopal Church, an independent church in communion with the Church of England.) The largest Methodist denomination in the U.S. today is the United Methodist Church. Official United Methodist teachings can be found here, although Methodists are often quite “loose” theologically and what you hear in your local Methodist congregation may be quite different from what you read in the official statements.

There are also three largely African-American Methodist denominations: the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Zion (AMEZ), and the Christian Methodist Episcopal Church (CME). The first two were founded in the North by free blacks who were not welcomed on an equal footing in the white Methodist churches. (The fact that they are separate denominations results more from personal rivalry among the early leaders, I’m afraid, than from any other reason.) The last was founded after the Civil War by freed slaves. British Methodists are different in organization and to some extent in beliefs from the American denominations (they don’t have bishops, for instance, and they are if anything harder to pin down doctrinally than United Methodists). Most Methodists in the rest of the world derive either from British or American Methodism (which are independent of each other but are in full communion and have a good working relationship).

The most important, distinctive Methodist doctrine is sanctification–that God’s purpose for us is to make us holy and that there is a sense in which we can be free from sin in this life. This has led in two directions (which I hope can be combined); toward a focus on personal relationship with God and a very intense, emotional kind of piety; and toward social activism with the goal of making not just individuals but society holy. Methodist doctrines of salvation are, on the whole, closer to Catholicism than are those of other Protestants. Perhaps the most important Methodist contribution to Christianity is their tradition of hymnwriting (and congregational singing). Charles Wesley (John Wesley’s brother) was probably the greatest hymnwriter in the English language. Hymns mean something to Methodists that Catholics simply cannot understand (in my experience).

Personal note: my family were Methodists 100 years ago and left the Methodist church to start their own denomination, eventually becoming nondenominational. My parents have now returned to the [United] Methodist Church. I am married to a Methodist and attend a UM church on Sunday morning (we go to the Episcopal church on Saturday evening). My daughter was baptized in the Methodist church.



“Evangelical” is a broad term that means “having to do with the gospel.” Medieval reform movements such as the Dominicans and Franciscans, for instance, used the term “evangelical” to describe a way of life patterned after Jesus and the apostles (specifically a life of poverty dedicated to preaching the Gospel and serving others). The Protestant Reformers used the term to describe their movement (“Protestant” was a label applied by Catholics), because they believed that they had recovered the Gospel (i.e., the message of justification by faith). In the late 17th and 18th centuries, many Protestants believed that the Protestant churches had become spiritually dead, focused on correct doctrine and/or respectable morality rather than on a living faith in Christ. In Germany, the movement to emphasize experience and personal commitment was called “Pietism”–in the English-speaking world, it was generally called “the Evangelical Revival.” Methodism originated as part of this movement, but it was only part.

In America evangelicalism became the dominant form of Christianity. The “First Great Awakening” in the colonial period and the “Second Great Awakening” in the early 19th century brought many people to a personal commitment to Christ and transformed American Protestantism. Many more people became active Christians (one of the myths of colonial America is that it was a very religious society–outside New England this was by and large not the case, especially on the frontier–the Great Awakenings, especially the Second, changed this), and the denominations that favored an emotional religion focused on personal experience tended to be the growing ones. (This meant particularly Methodists and Baptists, though Presbyterians participated as well–indeed pretty much all Protestant denominations were affected to some extent.) By the mid-19th-century, most American Protestants saw themselves as part of an “evangelical” alliance that emphasized the authority of Scripture and the necessity of personal conversion. This evangelical Protestantism was very ecumenical among Protestant denominations but extremely hostile to Catholicism. The same situation prevailed to a great extent in Europe, especially Britain, but less clearly than in the U.S.

19th-century evangelicalism started to break down in the latter half of the century, largely because of the growth of liberal theology among the educated clergy. Biblical criticism and to some extent scientific discoveries and theories such as Darwinian evolution (though I think the importance of this has been exaggerated) caused many Protestant intellectuals (particularly in Germany) to question traditional beliefs. (Actually there had been Protestant theologians who did this for a long time, but these currents became more dominant after about 1860.) The most basic way of describing this theology is that it separated out questions of history and science from questions of faith. You could be a devout Christian based on personal experience and the pursuit of personal and social holiness without necessarily believing that the Red Sea really parted or, in extreme cases, that Jesus really rose from the dead in a physical sense. So liberal Protestants used evangelical language (Adolf von Harnack’s What is Christianity? is a really good example of this) without necessarily believing in things like the bodily resurrection which traditional evangelicals would have taken for granted.

Thus, in the early 20th century American evangelical Protestantism (and to some extent European Protestantism as well) broke up into two wings: the “modernists,” who accepted the liberal premise that you could be a devout Christian without necessarily believing in the traditional claims of Christianity, and the “fundamentalists,” who insisted on certain doctrines and historical claims as being central to the Christian faith (the five “fundamentals” were usually listed as the inerrancy of Scripture, the virginal conception and deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and either the miracles generally or the Second Coming, depending on which version of the list you follow; the main difference is whether you insist on a “premillenial” version of the Second Coming, which some fundamentalists did/do). By the 1920s the fundamentalists were leaving or being kicked out of many of the major Protestant denominations, leaving people with more or less “modernist” views in control. (It wasn’t quite that simple. Many people remained quite traditional in their views in the big denominations.)




For about 50 years, that was what American Protestantism looked like–“mainline” denominations with fairly liberal theology and a strong emphasis on social justice, and a confusing network of more conservative denominations, independent churches, Bible colleges, radio stations, etc., which were generally considered less important and looked down on by the media and sociey as a whole. If reporters wanted a Protestant perspective on something, they were likely to go to a “mainline” theologian, not a "fundamentalist.

However, there were important changes going on in this period. On the one hand, many “mainline” theologians became unhappy with modernism and embraced something called “neo-orthodoxy,” which kept modernism’s respect for Biblical criticism and so forth but insisted that Christianity really was a revelation from God with doctrinal content and a message of judgment and redemption rather than simply humankind’s highest aspirations or something like that.

On the other hand–and here I finally start answering your question (!)–in the 1940s and 50s many of the more conservative theologians became dissatisfied with the “fundamentalist” label. This had come to mean not just “someone who believes in certain fundamental doctrines” but “someone who won’t associate with anyone who doesn’t believe exactly the same things.” Fundamentalists had become more and more quarrelsome and legalistic. So a new generation of leaders began calling themselves “evangelicals” as opposed to fundamentalists (fundamentalists, of course, would still insist that they are the real “evangelicals”). It’s a broader, gentler term, indicating that you believe in the basic doctrines of the faith but that your primary emphasis is on a personal relationship with Christ through saving faith. Billy Graham is the quintessential evangelical.

Very quickly, it became clear that even among those who weren’t hardline fundamentalists, there were important differences on how far one could go in this new openness. Many evangelicals said, and some continue to say, that their only real difference with fundamentalism is in their view of separation (i.e., they don’t separate from other Christians as readily or as strictly as fundamentalists). They still believe in the fundamentals, including a strict view of Biblical inerrancy and substitutionary atonement (the two that have come under most fire), and also including the belief that anyone who has not explicitly become a Christian in this life will go to hell.

Other “neo-evangelicals” became more open to theological currents such as neo-orthodoxy, which they saw as a move of God within the more liberal “mainline” churches. Over time, they became interested in Biblical criticism and found it harder and harder to believe in the conservative version of Biblical inerrancy. They studied the history of the doctrine of the atonement and weren’t sure that “penal substitution” (God’s justice demands punishment, so Jesus was punished in our place) is the only way to talk about it. (They’re also more likely to believe in women’s ordination.) To more conservative Evangelicals (who are more likely to capitalize the word), this is simply the same old liberal story. (In return, more liberal evangelicals tend to call these conservative Evangelicals “fundamentalists.”


But neo-evangelicals (I would put myself in this category) say otherwise. We believe that the terms of the fundamentalist-modernist controversy were wrong. The modernists did indeed abandon much of the substance of the faith, but the fundamentalists were mistaken in thinking that Biblical inerrancy was the place to draw the battle lines. For me personally, the decisive moment in my rejection of fundamentalism (broadly defined) was a conversation with a Muslim. I was amazed at how much he sounded like a Christian fundamentalist in his defense of the Qur’an. And then he challenged me on how I could believe in the Incarnation, since this meant that God went to the bathroom! And it hit me–the reason I’m a Christian and not a Muslim is not because I think that I can prove that the Bible and not the Qur’an is an inerrant revelation from God (I see no reason to believe in the Qur’an, but my objections to it sound a lot like those of skeptics to the Bible). I’m a Christian because I believe that God became human in Jesus Christ for our salvation. That is the core of my faith. The Bible is important because it points to that.

That, to me, is what makes a more moderate/liberal evangelical different from both a conservative evangelical/fundamentalist and from a liberal Protestant. However, I represent the more “high-church” or pro-Catholic wing of evangelicalism. There is another trend in modern evangelicalism coming out of the “Jesus movement” of the 60s, and that is a hostility toward anything that seems too “religious” or traditional or dogmatic. This impulse in evangelicalism is hostile both to fundamentalism and to much of traditional Christianity. It scoffs at rituals or complicated doctrines, because all you need is a personal relationship with Jesus.

However, the two impulses can meet in interesting ways. One example is the charismatic movement, which spread into Catholicism. As a result, Protestants and Catholics found themselves sharing a common experience of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and even though the charismatic movement was very anti-institutional and anti-traditional, it broke down doctrinal barriers in ways that has been very healthy for ecumenism and has in the end (at least in my judgment) strengthened rather than weakening Catholicism. (Mother Angelica and EWTN, Fr. Groeschel and the Franciscans of the Renewal, and Scott Hahn and the Franciscan University at Steubenville have all been deeply influenced by the charismatic movement.)

The other example is the contemporary movement called the “emerging/emergent church.” These people are on the whole hostile to doctrinal definition and reliance on tradition, but at the same time they are very interested in mysticism and ancient spirituality. They love candles and incense and chanting, and they love to read Catholic mystical writers. The ecumenical monastery at Taize is very influential among people in the emerging church, it seems to me.

I know this has been very long and confusing, but the subject is very complicated. Evangelicalism can be defined in a hundred ways, but most basically it is a form of Christianity that emphasizes a personal relationship with Christ through faith. In my opinion evangelicalism and Catholicism are fully compatible when rightly understood, and I pray that more people will come to see things that way!

In Christ,



thanks for taking the time and effort to write those detailed responses, edwin. they made for illuminating reading, and i may return to them in the future when i get confused about the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists.


At the rehearsal dinner for my wedding (at Asbury Theological Seminary, by the way), we had a hymn sing. Afterward my one Catholic groomsman looked at one of the other groomsmen and said in disbelief, “Who does these things?”



:slight_smile: Ahhh, I haven’t gone to a good hymn sing in ages…probably since I left the Methodist Church for the Episcopal Church, although the music and hymnology in the Episcopal Church tends to be quite good as well. (After all, Charles Wesley remained a member of the Church of England to his death! :smiley: )


ok, now i’m intrigued. is this a particular style of singing? are there recordings of it i can listen to?

i’m imagining something like the music the congregation at nicole kidman’s church was singing in the movie “cold mountain”, if you saw that. and does it have something to do with “shape note” singing?


No, nothing so fancy (necessarily). By “hymn sing” we just mean getting together (in church or on a more informal basis) and singing hymns. Kind of like caroling. It doesn’t describe any particular style of hymn. One could presumably sing “On Eagle’s Wings,” but why would one?



…and in my experience it is often the congregation that chooses the hymns to sing. For example, the congregation might sing *Faith of Our Fathers *followed by *Amazing Grace * and Nearer My God to Thee then people would call out the numbers of other hymns they would like to sing…(one of my favorites being that particular hymn of John Wesley’s that traditionally occupies the place of Hymn No. 1 in the Methodist Hymnal…). The idea is to allow people to sing the hymns that they love to sing but don’t always get the chance to sing every week in Church.


Thankyou!That clears up a lot

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit