Another belief I struggle with within the SDA

[maco]

I recently questioned the teaching on baptism into the SDA.

I believe that when one is baptized that person is baptized into the body of Christ, not the SDA church.

I believe that a person should be baptized into Christ and then offered to become a member of the SDA if the choose to do so. I ran into some friction with viewing my thoughts. They said all the people who were baptized in the NT were joining the local church but when I quoted from Acts 8:37-39 how Philip baptized the eunuch and then was taken off by the HS. The eunuch wasn't signed up for membership to any local church he just went away rejoicing as a member of Christ's church.

Acts 8:37-39 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.'' And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'' So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Of course they didn't see it my way.

I struggle with this...:scratch:

What are your thoughts?

Many blessings,
John

[maco]

Here are a few more thoughts.

The Bible teaches us very clearly that we are baptized into Christ but the church disagrees. The church teaches us that we are baptized into the church. They even go one step further and say we are baptized into the SDA, the remnent church.

Don't get me wrong, there is an understanding in the Bible that tells us we become part of the body, the church, through baptisim but that body is Christ's body, His church.

Christ's church is NOT made up of people as much as its made up of a way of thinking. People who have the mind of Christ belong to Him and are part of His body.

There can be many people within a denomination who don't have the mind of Christ. The denomination itself may not have the mind of Christ.

One of the most important qualities in having the mind of Christ is hearing, listening and obeying the Father. I believe this is what the NT church is built on.

Matthew 16:15-18 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Peter was hearing the revelation from the Father who was in heaven regarding His Son and Peter believed. It's this priciple that God has built His NT church on. Its this principle that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Now, a gate is something that keeps you in. Hell is the grave. When we listen to the Father and believe and do His will then the gates of the grave will not keep us in and have no power over us.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

Matthew 12:48-50 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! "For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

What are your thoughts?

Many blessings,
John

[annie1speed]

Hi John,

If it helps, I believe that when we are baptized, God adds us to his church, not a denomination.

Annie

[maco]

Hi John,

If it helps, I believe that when we are baptized, God adds us to his church, not a denomination.

Annie

Hi Annie,

Praise God for your understanding of baptism.

I had a discussion with a couple of elders regarding the belief that when we're baptized we're baptized into the SDA church.

I commented on the fact that the Bible teaches us that we're baptized into Christ, not a denomination. One of the elder's reply was, "Who will baptize them?"

The reason for this whole discussion was because I do a prison Bible study and in this study there were a few imates that desired to be baptized but had no desire of becoming an Adventist. I wanted to have them baptized because they desired to identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as they enter into their new life with Christ. It didn't go over too well.

This is the reason for this post. I want to know what other SDA's believe regarding this issue.

I don't understand why most SDA's believe as I do but yet the same teaching goes on...:scratch:

Many blessings,
John

[Sophia7]

I definitely think that the Adventist Church requires too much of people before baptism. The New Testament model was certainly not to indoctrinate people into a set of denomination-specific beliefs before they could be baptized.

[woobadooba]

I recently questioned the teaching on baptism into the SDA.

I believe that when one is baptized that person is baptized into the body of Christ, not the SDA church.

I believe that a person should be baptized into Christ and then offered to become a member of the SDA if the choose to do so. I ran into some friction with viewing my thoughts. They said all the people who were baptized in the NT were joining the local church but when I quoted from Acts 8:37-39 how Philip baptized the eunuch and then was taken off by the HS. The eunuch wasn't signed up for membership to any local church he just went away rejoicing as a member of Christ's church.

Acts 8:37-39 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.'' And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'' So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Of course they didn't see it my way.

I struggle with this...:scratch:

What are your thoughts?

Many blessings,
John

You will find people within our church that will agree with you, and people that won't agree with you. Yet, you will also find people that will agree with both ideas to some degree (I just so happen to be one of these).

The question that one ought to ask is: did the people that were baptized into the church (which is the body of Christ) during the time of the Apostles, not learn anything about Jesus Christ that they had to agree with before they could be baptized into Christ?

Let's look at it...

"Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all those afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words he earnestly testified and exhorted, saying, Be saved from this perverse generation. Then those who gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added about three thousand souls. And they were continuing steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and in the breaking of the loaves, and in prayers." (Act 2:38-42)

What sense would there have been in Peter telling the people to "repent", and then be baptized, if all they had to do was just simply say, "I believe in Jesus Christ"?

The idea of repenting denotes that one is to change his way of thinking about something. You wouldn't know what to change your thoughts to without someone teaching you about what you ought to think. And the words, "gladly received his word", imply that they received some kind of teaching that they agreed with before being baptized. And the idea that they continued "steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine", suggests that they received some teaching that they had to agree with before being baptised.

So I don't see that there is a problem with expecting people to agree with certain doctrines before baptizing them. It is not unBiblical to expect such a thing, as we can see.

[Mankin]

I definitely think that the Adventist Church requires too much of people before baptism. The New Testament model was certainly not to indoctrinate people into a set of denomination-specific beliefs before they could be baptized.

I defintely agree with you. Adventists say that we have to be baptised to be saved, but we make people learn all about our church and accept our doctrines before we let them be baptised. I believe that we are baptised into the Body of Christ not into a certain denomination. All of the doctrines should come secondary to this one truth.

[woobadooba]

[quote=Mankin;34829712]I defintely agree with you. Adventists say that we have to be baptized to be saved

No, Jesus said this.

Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:3)

but we make people learn all about our church and accept our doctrines before we let them be baptised.

Does it really make sense to have them join a church that they don't know much about? Would you make a decision to marry a woman just simply by knowing her name and date of birth?

I believe that we are baptised into the Body of Christ not into a certain denomination. All of the doctrines should come secondary to this one truth.

All of the doctrines should come secondary?

But how can you make a decision to be baptized if you don't really know what you are being baptized into?

Doctrines/teachings inform you of what you ought to believe about Jesus Christ.

Without them you really can't know Him.

[thecountrydoc]

Well said Woobadooba!!!

Doc

[maco]

I believe the first thing we need to understand in order to be baptized is the fact that we are sinners and we need to died to the old man. When a person understands this he, through baptisim, appeals to God to cleans his conscience.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Once he is baptized he enters into a new spiritual journey, a new life with Christ, growing and maturing in the love and truth of salvation.

[janetjewel2000]

I believe the first thing we need to understand in order to be baptized is the fact that we are sinners and we need to died to the old man. When a person understands this he, through baptisim, appeals to God to cleans his conscience.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Once he is baptized he enters into a new spiritual journey, a new life with Christ, growing and maturing in the love and truth of salvation.




This is correct....amen!

We are not baptised into a man made orgainization, we are baptised into Christ, HIS BODY.

To make it otherwise is an idol.

Many denominations do this, it is not just a 7th day adventist thing. Catholicism is guilty of the same thing.

It should not matter what a "denomination" would teach, truth, pure truth comes from the holy spirit, anyway.

Just realise that it is Jesus that saves, not a group of people, no matter how sincere they are...and, you will do well....:thumbsup:

In time, God will correct the error.

in christian love,

janet

[woobadooba]

It should not matter what a "denomination" would teach, truth, pure truth comes from the holy spirit, anyway.

If this is true, then what sense would there have been in Peter telling the people to repent before they could be baptized into the body of Christ?

The idea of repenting suggests that we have to change our way of thinking about something.

Oh, but then one might say that Peter was merely referring to sin when he had said, "repent".

Well, what is sin, but a lie?

Some people would have you to believe that truth is merely a matter of taste, that no one can really know what it is for sure. Thus these people take God's Holy Word and twist it in every way possible to come up with ideas that appeal to their emotions.

Should we want to join such a group of people? Should we consider them brothers and sisters in Christ if they are espousing views that make the gospel look like a farce?

Belief does matter a great deal; and we better be sure we have the right doctrine/teaching before agreeing to become one with it through baptism.

[woobadooba]

I believe the first thing we need to understand in order to be baptized is the fact that we are sinners and we need to died to the old man. When a person understands this he, through baptism, appeals to God to cleans his conscience.

1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

Once he is baptized he enters into a new spiritual journey, a new life with Christ, growing and maturing in the love and truth of salvation.

Yes, we need to understand that we are sinners; but what is sin? Where did it come from? What is it the result of? How does it really effect my life? What does God think about it? Why is it bad? What is good? Why can't I just live my life the way I want to? If God is loving surely he will save me anyway, right? How can I be sure Jesus died for my sins? What if He was just like everyone else? How can I be sure He really rose again? How can I trust the Bible to tell me what I am, that I am a sinner in need of a savior? There are many different religions, why should I trust this one, and thus be baptized into it? etc...etc...

Now do you see my point?

The idea of just simply confessing that we are a sinner in need of a savior is much broader than most people tend to think.

The issues that I have brought out in my questions ought to be dealt with before a person can really make a true confession of faith, and thus be baptized into the body of Christ.

Things are not like they were during the time of the Apostles. Now we have all kinds of scripture twisting going on.

I think it would be wise to learn what the truth is before taking someone's word for it. A lot of people are talking about Jesus these days; but not everyone really knows Him well enough to talk about Him in the right way.

If we are going to be baptized into the body of Christ, then we really ought to find out if the body that we are being baptized into is really of Christ. This involves the study of doctrine.

[janetjewel2000]

Quote:
Originally Posted by janetjewel2000 http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=34842904#post34842904)
It should not matter what a "denomination" would teach, truth, pure truth comes from the holy spirit, anyway.

If this is true, then what sense would there have been in Peter telling the people to repent before they could be baptized into the body of Christ?

The idea of repenting suggests that we have to change our way of thinking about something.

Oh, but then one might say that Peter was merely referring to sin when he had said, "repent".

Well, what is sin, but a lie?



I am not sure I am understanding your intent in a right way?

We do not repent in order to enter a man made organization. We repent in order to enter into a saving relationship with our Lord and master. Sin is the transgression of the law. The law is faith. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.:thumbsup:


Some people would have you to believe that truth is merely a matter of taste, that no one can really know what it is for sure. Thus these people take God's Holy Word and twist it in every way possible to come up with ideas that appeal to their emotions.


There is one truth, one baptism, one faith.

The problem today is that people listen to interpretations of men on what true faith is, instead of looking to God the giver of true light and teaching.


Should we want to join such a group of people? Should we consider them brothers and sisters in Christ if they are espousing views that make the gospel look like a farce?


I wouldn't. I would rather make company with people whom understand the gospel. Again, the problem arises when people look to men and the teachings of men of what the gospel is, and this is why we have a denomination for just about every bible verse....:eek:



Belief does matter a great deal; and we better be sure we have the right doctrine/teaching before agreeing to become one with it through baptism.





All one needs to understand before being baptised is that Jesus died for their sins. Once the holy spirit enters a person, that spirit leads him/her into all truth, over time. You have it backwards, it appears.

God is the giver of truth, not doctrines of men.

in christian love,

janet

[janetjewel2000]

If we are going to be baptized into the body of Christ, then we really ought to find out if the body that we are being baptized into is really of Christ. This involves the study of doctrine.



You are confusing a man made denomination with the body of Christ. The true body of Christ is not a man made organization, and, it is not made with human hands..but, all christians in every denomination that truly understand the need for a Savior are brought into it...it is not a denomination that can be seen here on this earth, it is HIS BODY< made without mortal hands.

Too many today have this confusion of looking for His body in the wrong place.

in christian love,

janet

[RC_NewProtestants]

woob wrote:
Things are not like they were during the time of the Apostles. Now we have all kinds of scripture twisting going on.

You really need to read up on early church history. Of course they did not have the New Testament scriptures as we know them but they had lots of scriptures and lots of interpretations from Ebionites, Gnostic, Maconian's, Docists. At least in modern Christianity we have some basic beliefs in common.

[woobadooba]

woob wrote:


You really need to read up on early church history. Of course they did not have the New Testament scriptures as we know them but they had lots of scriptures and lots of interpretations from Ebionites, Gnostic, Maconian's, Docists. At least in modern Christianity we have some basic beliefs in common.

I got your point, and agree; but what I was basically referring to is post-modernistic thinking, which has impacted the way people in the church approach scripture in an attempt to ascertain its intended meaning. I see this quite often, not only in here, but especially in GT.

[woobadooba]

We do not repent in order to enter a man made organization.

What makes you think it is man-made? If the teachings of such an organization reflect the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, can one really designate such a movement as being man-made?

We repent in order to enter into a saving relationship with our Lord and master. Sin is the transgression of the law. The law is faith. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.:thumbsup:

Did I disagree with this in anything that I had said?

There is one truth, one baptism, one faith.

But how do you know what that "one truth, one baptism, one faith" is without receiving doctrine? And how do you know the doctrine to be that which properly represents that "one truth, one baptism, one faith" without having a means by which to test it?

Of course, the methodology of testing such things is a doctrine in and of itself. If one does not adhere to such 'doctrine' for testing the validity of doctrines, one couldn't really know that that "one truth, one baptism, one faith", is really the correct 'one';)

Would it then be wise to make the decision to blindly unite oneself with teachings that one does not really know are true?

In other words, could it be possible that one might think he is being baptized into the body of Christ, while actually being grafted into a web of deceit that will put him on a path that leads to damnation?

Deep stuff, eh?

How often do we think about such things?

The problem today is that people listen to interpretations of men on what true faith is, instead of looking to God the giver of true light and teaching.

Does this then mean that all men are wrong who speak on behalf of God?

Don't you believe that God is capable of giving men wisdom to understand His Holy Word?

Perhaps the problem isn't so much that people are listening to interpretations of men, as it is that people just aren't listening to the right men whom God has appointed as teachers, to educate His people on matters of truth...

All one needs to understand before being baptized is that Jesus died for their sins.

Should one not understand what it means to be baptized before being baptized? Should one not come to understand what sin is, before confessing that Jesus died for his sins? And what does confession mean anyway? And why did Jesus have to die? Why can't we just be accepted for what we are? What is faith? Why am I here? Where did I come from? Who made me? Why is my life such a mess?

Don't you think questions like these ought to be addressed before expecting someone to give his life to Christ?

Of course, there are other questions; but I am sure you get the point.

Once the holy spirit enters a person, that spirit leads him/her into all truth, over time. You have it backwards, it appears.

You don't think one ought to know 'some' truth prior to this?

Do I really have it backwards, or are you assuming things about me without asking enough questions?

God is the giver of truth, not doctrines of men.

Did I ever say something to the contrary?

[janetjewel2000]

Hi,

But how do you know what that "one truth, one baptism, one faith" is without receiving doctrine? And how do you know the doctrine to be that which properly represents that "one truth, one baptism, one faith" without having a means by which to test it?



I was referring to what needed to be understood by a person, before baptism. All one needs to know and understand is the basic and simple gospel message, that Jesus Christ died for you, and through His sacrifice you have access to His throne of grace. I was in disagreement with the idea that someone needs to be fed alot of doctrine, outside of that basic and simple gospel message in order to undergo water baptism. The accounts in God's word does not show that a person needs to be indoctrinated in alot of areas outside of just hearing the simple and basic gospel message.

Of course, the methodology of testing such things is a doctrine in and of itself. If one does not adhere to such 'doctrine' for testing the validity of doctrines, one couldn't really know that that "one truth, one baptism, one faith", is really the correct 'one';)


Yes, if you are simply referring to the basic and simple gospel message...as I see it. It seems to me that some denominations try to indoctrinate a person with their "doctrine" so as to see if the person can accept it, as THE truth, before they allow them to undergo baptism, or etc.

Would it then be wise to make the decision to blindly unite oneself with teachings that one does not really know are true?



You would have to clarify what "doctrines" you are referring to. All one needs from the beginning is the message to repent and believe. Repent of sin, and beleive the simple and basic gospel message, and then he can be baptised, receive the gift of the holy spirit that guarantees to lead the person THEN into all truth...this is the biblical account...as I see it. In this way you are truly brought into the fellowship of the church that He is building, without hands...(biblically speaking this means without the works of men, or their doctrines/traditions)

In other words, could it be possible that one might think he is being baptized into the body of Christ, while actually being grafted into a web of deceit that will put him on a path that leads to damnation?

Deep stuff, eh?


Not possible, if the person has truly repented of his/her sin,and accepted the simple and basic gospel message. We have promises from God...and, it is a lack of faith to think otherwise, in mho. My whole point is that we must trust God to lead us, and not men. The whole problem today is that seemingly men are trying to do the work of the holy spirit...it is the spirit that quickens, gives increase, not men...according to the word of God. Man's traditions say the opposite..as I see it.






How often do we think about such things?


Quote:
The problem today is that people listen to interpretations of men on what true faith is, instead of looking to God the giver of true light and teaching.


Does this then mean that all men are wrong who speak on behalf of God?




Not at all, if men would do what God commissioned, and leave the rest up to God, as is HIS job, we would never have different denominations to begin with.....:D It is because man is not allowing God to do HIS job that there are many splits, etc.

Don't you believe that God is capable of giving men wisdom to understand His Holy Word?


Certainly..I do. Again, my only disagreement is in the area of what needs to be understood before one can be baptised.

Perhaps the problem isn't so much that people are listening to interpretations of men, as it is that people just aren't listening to the right men whom God has appointed as teachers, to educate His people on matters of truth...



The new covenant speaks on this wise: "they shall not teach every man his neigbor, for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest", because in all reailty, as I said, it is God whom is the teacher of things outside of the basic and simple gospel message. God gave the authority to men to proclaim that message, and then He promises to take it from there by giving increase to each individual...today we have the opposite....we have denominations whom want to be God Himself...which is not the right way to go.



Quote:
All one needs to understand before being baptized is that Jesus died for their sins.


Should one not understand what it means to be baptized before being baptized? Should one not come to understand what sin is, before confessing that Jesus died for his sins? And what does confession mean anyway? And why did Jesus have to die? Why can't we just be accepted for what we are? What is faith? Why am I here? Where did I come from? Who made me? Why is my life such a mess?



Yes, the person should be told what sin is...sin is the transgression of the law of God/faith. Then told how his/her sins can be forgiven..and, then that is about all that needs to be understood. A person cannot understand other things anyway, without the holy spirit to lead and guide....their mind is carnal, and cannot hear the law of God, but, once he/she receives the spirit, that spirit quickens and gives increase in all things....over time.


Don't you think questions like these ought to be addressed before expecting someone to give his life to Christ?

Of course, there are other questions; but I am sure you get the point.



Maybe we are saying the same thing?



Quote:
Once the holy spirit enters a person, that spirit leads him/her into all truth, over time. You have it backwards, it appears.


You don't think one ought to know 'some' truth prior to this?

Do I really have it backwards, or are you assuming things about me without asking enough questions?


Quote:



I know from my own experiences that men tend to want to interpret the word of God for those whom they think are still on the outside. That was never the job for men...God commissioned the church to preach the good news of salvation by grace through faith to everyone whom would believe....

explaining grace to a person is required. Explaining why that person needs grace is also something that needs to be told them, so that they can repent. I think maybe we are talking the same thing?...and, yes, maybe I did jump to conclusions.

What is it that you feel needs to be told them before hand exactly?




God is the giver of truth, not doctrines of men.


Did I ever say something to the contrary?




I don't know...when I read through this thread, it appeared that you were saying that we need to indoctrinate people of things outside of the simple and basic gospel message..which is repent and believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, to receive salvation..if I have misunderstood you, I apologise.. ;)

The gospel message is simple, and basic.

It is all that needs to be explained.

Are you in agreement with that?

It does not involve anything other than explaining why a person needs to repent, and believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

in christian love,

janet

[woobadooba]

I was referring to what needed to be understood by a person, before baptism. All one needs to know and understand is the basic and simple gospel message, that Jesus Christ died for you, and through His sacrifice you have access to His throne of grace. I was in disagreement with the idea that someone needs to be fed alot of doctrine, outside of that basic and simple gospel message in order to undergo water baptism. [/size]

But there is a lot more to the gospel than just saying, "Jesus died for your sins, and if you give your life to Him, you will be saved."

Again, issues as to why one has to be saved, and what it means to be saved, ought to be addressed before one could really make a decision to give his life to Christ.

This involves learning doctrine before making a decision to become a part the movement which makes such claims.

Too many people are brought into the Church as a result of hearing a shallow message which causes them to not take the gospel seriously.

If people would be exposed to proper teaching prior to being baptised, less people would leave the church, and more people would be serious about Jesus Christ that become members of His body.

One ought to know what he is getting himself into before making a decision to become one with it, don't you think so?

The accounts in God's word does not show that a person needs to be indoctrinated in alot of areas outside of just hearing the simple and basic gospel message.

But certain teachings must be inculcated and agreed to before one could be grafted into the body of Christ.

Yes, if you are simply referring to the basic and simple gospel message...as I see it. It seems to me that some denominations try to indoctrinate a person with their "doctrine" so as to see if the person can accept it, as THE truth, before they allow them to undergo baptism, or etc.

But then the question must be asked, "Are the teachings that they are inculcating of God, or do they originate with men?

You would have to clarify what "doctrines" you are referring to. All one needs from the beginning is the message to repent and believe. Repent of sin, and believe the simple and basic gospel message, and then he can be baptized, receive the gift of the holy spirit that guarantees to lead the person THEN into all truth...this is the biblical account...as I see it. In this way you are truly brought into the fellowship of the church that He is building, without hands...(biblically speaking this means without the works of men, or their doctrines/traditions)

There are quite a lot actually...

And what one has to disclose to another who desires to give His life to Christ is dependant on what that person already knows.

It is important to keep in mind that when we see accounts of what seems to be 'easy baptism' in the Bible, that the Bible doesn't really record what these people already knew and were accustomed to practicing prior to being baptised.

For example, if one already knew that the commandments of God must be kept, it wouldn't have been necessary for such information to be disclosed to that person prior to him being baptized.

After all, Peter said, "repent". What is one supposed to repent of if he isn't already aware of what is wrong about his way of thinking? Obviously the people to whom he had spoken these words were already aware of the fact that God has moral laws that must be agreed to by those who make the claim to be His followers.

How could one know what sin is without being aware of such moral absolutes, to even admit that he is a sinner in need of a savior?


So I think it is a matter of what one already knows which determines what he needs to become aware of before being baptized; and this will obviously vary from person to person.

You see, there is no need to tell someone what moral absolutes he ought to follow if he already knows what they are.

Not possible, if the person has truly repented of his/her sin,and accepted the simple and basic gospel message. We have promises from God...and, it is a lack of faith to think otherwise, in mho. My whole point is that we must trust God to lead us, and not men. The whole problem today is that seemingly men are trying to do the work of the holy spirit...it is the spirit that quickens, gives increase, not men...according to the word of God. Man's traditions say the opposite..as I see it.

Not possible?

There are many teachers out there that are using the same 'terms' that appear in the Bible, while defining them in ways that are foreign to what the Bible really says about them.

In other words, a lot of people are saying, "Lord, Lord", but are espousing views that are a reproach to God.

So don't tell me that it isn't possible for people to be baptized under the assumption that they are being grafted into the body of Christ, when in fact they are being drawn into some cult, or movement that inculcates ideas that could put that person on a path to damnation.

You do realize that there are false christs, right?

And just as there are false christs, there are false teachers that know how to use God-words in an ungodly way, so as to lure people into what they believe to be true about Jesus Christ, when in fact such teachings oppose everything that He stands for.

Not at all, if men would do what God commissioned, and leave the rest up to God, as is HIS job, we would never have different denominations to begin with.....:D It is because man is not allowing God to do HIS job that there are many splits, etc

But how do you even know you belong to the right movement?

The new covenant speaks on this wise: "they shall not teach every man his neigbor, for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest", because in all reailty, as I said, it is God whom is the teacher of things outside of the basic and simple gospel message. God gave the authority to men to proclaim that message, and then He promises to take it from there by giving increase to each individual...today we have the opposite....we have denominations whom want to be God Himself...which is not the right way to go.

In all honesty, if you claim to be taught of God, why then do you espouse views that are not in harmony with the Bible, such as your views on eternal hellfire, the state of the dead, and the Sabbath?

Such interpretations that you hold to be true on these matters are not of God, but of men.

But maybe you are not like the typical non-denominationalist that believes such things...

If so, why would you want to be a part of a movement that it teaching falsehood?

I know I may sound harsh right now, but let's be real about this. Much of what your movement teaches is based on man-made tradition, and not what God's word actually says.

If you care to address these matters we can see what the Bible really says about them.

We would have to do this in another thread of course.

What is it that you feel needs to be told them before hand exactly?

The truth.

[janetjewel2000]

Hi Chris,

If you want to start another thread where we can discuss the differences of opinion, I am open to that.

I won't argue, though....but, I certainly would be willing to discuss the issues.

At least until we have a right idea as to what I believe, because you jumped to all kinds of assumptions about what I do believe...lol....for I never mentioned them herein.

You may be surprised that I agree with the "hell" issue. God does not put people in a everburning hell and torment them forever, that is a teaching I detest.

As for the sabbath, Jesus is the reality, whereas the "day" only pointed to Him. We get our rest from Him, through the gospel message, that is without works on our part, as a free gift.

The "letter" or stone law made that clear that it brought condemnation, whereas the law of faith/Christ brings life.

In christian love,

janet

[woobadooba]

Hi Chris,

If you want to start another thread where we can discuss the differences of opinion, I am open to that.


I think it would be a good idea.

At least until we have a right idea as to what I believe, because you jumped to all kinds of assumptions about what I do believe...lol....for I never mentioned them herein.

Maybe you overlooked what I had said in my post in relation to this.

Do you recall me saying:

"Such interpretations that you hold to be true on these matters are not of God, but of men.

But maybe you are not like the typical non-denominationalist that believes such things..."

You may be surprised that I agree with the "hell" issue. God does not put people in a everburning hell and torment them forever, that is a teaching I detest.

That is good news, because it is a detestable belief.

As for the sabbath, Jesus is the reality, whereas the "day" only pointed to Him. We get our rest from Him, through the gospel message, that is without works on our part, as a free gift.

We can discuss this...

As I had mentioned before in my PM to you, I have a few things to take care of.

We can discuss these deeper issues at a later time.

In the meantime, enjoy the forum. It is good to have you here with us:)

[TrustAndObey]

HiJanetJewel2000! Welcome!

[janetjewel2000]

Thanks Chris...just send me a pm when you get the time to let me know. This board is so big, I kinda find it hard to keep up with....:confused:

Thanks "TrustandObey",for the warm welcome.:wave:

in christian love,

janet

[honorthesabbath]

Janet-when someone hears the gospel message (which is a 'doctrine') and responds positively and is baptised (into the death and resurrection of Christ)-the bible refers to that person as a 'babe'. Their walk with Christ has just begun.

When God places a new human life into the womb of a woman, His intend is that new-born babe have a 'home' and a support system to NURTURE that new life. The child must to taught how to feed itself-dress itself and make it's way through this life. The same is true of a new convert. This is why Jesus put TEACHERS in the church.This is why the SDA church and other churches want you to be baptised into their HOME. There you have many 'mothers' and 'fathers' and siblings to help you grow in grace.

So even though when a person is baptised into Christ's body--that 'body' IS the church. And one of God's safeguards against that babe being swept away 'with every wind of doctrine'-is to place him/her among 'adults' who can teach them.

So I look at the churches insistance of becoming a member of that church in which one is baptised as a "God thing"!

[AlbertaBoy]

Here is the official belief statement for baptism. This is by The General Conference:

15. Baptism:
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church.

Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit.

It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin.

It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

Historically, there has been some conflicts, in varying degrees, regarding baptism in our Church.

I don't see it as "wrong" to have a personal conflict over it all; rather, questions about this subject, or any other can actually be very beneficial.

I do know that The Adventist Church leaves it up to local congregations to determine just what to "make" people ascribe to when they get baptised. Therefore you will see differences in what one has to profess to when baptism occurs. I think that is a good way to do it, for it allows people to vary a bit from the norm.

When I was baptised, I only had to profess to 13 basic beliefs! Now there are 28. To me, there should be a small core of beliefs that one has to ascribe to or give assent to, (maybe 6 or so), and the rest can follow as they "grow in grace," and learn more. I didn't mind though, giving assent to what I did, because I saw those beliefs as true, but I think that the emphasis could be improved for new baptismal candidates. I don't advocate changing any of the fundamental beliefs, only changing the emphasis placed on them for new baptismal candidates.

Some Pastors do this already, so I think progress is being made. Thorough instruction should still be given to baptismal candidates; but the emphasis can be worked with. I know too that some from other denominations who want to become Adventists and who have already been baptised can join our Church simply on the basis of "Profession of Faith." So we are making progress!! :)

As far as that "eunuch" fellow who some say did not get baptized into a Church, I see that as a case of us saying things we don't really know. There was a more relevant point to that passage of scripture than "Did he get baptised into a Church?"

[Godsgurl08]

hmm...never really thought about it that way

[Loveaboveall]

I think there is a very important point that has been missed in this thread. Woob vaguely pointed to it but did not address it directly.

The Seventh-day Adventist faith is not a denomination but a movement. The Church of Christ is a spiritual church that is comprised of many people of many different faiths, all who have one thing in common; they love Jesus with their whole heart and long to glorify Him in everything they do. So when a person is baptized, they are baptized into the body of Christ not a specific denomination or movement. Which includes the seventh day adventist movement and the restoration movement.

I am going to use an extreme example to make a point:

Say a man approaches you knowing that you are an elder in a church, doesn't matter what church. He approaches you because he wants to be baptized into Christ as the bible instructs him to be. However, there is a catch. Tomorrow he is going in for a very risky surgery that he has a very high chance of dying. Do you take the time to study with him All the doctrines that you hold to be true and if he does not agree with you on, say, the state of the dead; do you refuse him baptism even though he believes?

What it really comes down to is Jesus.

However, in a "normal case" it would be a great disservice to a person to baptize them knowing that they hold to the the doctrine of OSAS. So it is important that a person demonstrates understanding of the gospel.

In the case above, it would be appropriate for you to f/u with this man if he lives through the surgery and continue studying with him. But the criteria for baptism biblically is belief in Jesus as your savior not on other points of doctrine.

[AlbertaBoy]

I think there is a very important point that has been missed in this thread. Woob vaguely pointed to it but did not address it directly.

The Seventh-day Adventist faith is not a denomination but a movement. The Church of Christ is a spiritual church that is comprised of many people of many different faiths, all who have one thing in common; they love Jesus with their whole heart and long to glorify Him in everything they do. So when a person is baptized, they are baptized into the body of Christ not a specific denomination or movement. Which includes the seventh day adventist movement and the restoration movement.

I am going to use an extreme example to make a point:

Say a man approaches you knowing that you are an elder in a church, doesn't matter what church. He approaches you because he wants to be baptized into Christ as the bible instructs him to be. However, there is a catch. Tomorrow he is going in for a very risky surgery that he has a very high chance of dying. Do you take the time to study with him All the doctrines that you hold to be true and if he does not agree with you on, say, the state of the dead; do you refuse him baptism even though he believes?

What it really comes down to is Jesus.

However, in a "normal case" it would be a great disservice to a person to baptize them knowing that they hold to the the doctrine of OSAS. So it is important that a person demonstrates understanding of the gospel.

In the case above, it would be appropriate for you to f/u with this man if he lives through the surgery and continue studying with him. But the criteria for baptism biblically is belief in Jesus as your savior not on other points of doctrine.

It is quite correct to say "What it really comes down to is Jesus;" thankyou for pointing that out here.

One of the things that crosses my mind, at times, when some people say that "all you need to be baptized is belief in Jesus;" is that the Bible does say Satan also believes in Jesus. (James 2:19).

There is the camp that tries to say "Only talk about Jesus;" but what they mean is "at the expense of doctrines."

I have always felt that "doctrines" are given a bad rap when the Bible would not support what people try to say. "Only talk about Jesus" and "Don't get too doctrinal" are commonly heard sayings which illustrate this.

As one who has worked in palliative care nursing for years; I understand very well that when a person is dying; they probably, don't even need baptism. They actually do just need Jesus.

Where the "doctrinal" part comes in, in my experience, is at the point of one's felt, and expressed need. This is how Jesus always met people. he met them where they were at.

All doctrines, correctly understood, have "Christ and Him crucified" as the central theme. Of course, you don't usually tell a dying person about "The Mark Of The Beast," but maybe that person has had two children killed in a car accident, and they are despairing about ever seeing them again; plus about what is going to happen to them personally.

I remember one such case; and I chose to talk about the resurrection with this individual. They were so delighted to hear the text in 1 Thes.4:13-18. They had no idea that through Jesus, they could be re-united with their loved ones again, and their were tears of joy around the hospital bed by all. To look to Jesus; and have His hope is what we all need.


1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.


Ellen White offers some very pertinent counsel on this matter of "doctrines:"


"There is one, great, central truth to be kept ever before the mind in the searching of the Scriptures: 'Christ and Him crucified.' Every other truth is invested with power and influence, corresponding to it's relation to this theme." (Ms. 31, 1890).


Any doctrine, or doctrinal understanding which lessens the need for, or negates the need for the Atonement, is not Christian. The Advent movement seeks to have this kind of focus on each doctrine, so that in reality, we do only talk about Jesus. :)

[Loveaboveall]

I did not mean to come across as using "fluff" doctrine. I was trying to make the point that it really is all about Jesus as Mrs. White states in the quote provided above.

There must be a difference in the belief of a christian verses the belief satan has. Could it be the difference is in two words? "in" and "of". Christians believe "in" Jesus and His saving power. Satan believes "of" Jesus and that He is God. Satan has not put His trust and belief "in" Jesus to save him and never will.

[AlbertaBoy]

I did not mean to come across as using "fluff" doctrine. I was trying to make the point that it really is all about Jesus as Mrs. White states in the quote provided above.

There must be a difference in the belief of a christian verses the belief satan has. Could it be the difference is in two words? "in" and "of". Christians believe "in" Jesus and His saving power. Satan believes "of" Jesus and that He is God. Satan has not put His trust and belief "in" Jesus to save him and never will.

I really liked the point you made re "in" and "of;" that is very well said. Please forgive me if my post seemed to be aimed at you personally; I wasn't intending to aim it at anyone...:)

As Paul once said: "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of Jesus Christ my Lord..." Meaning, in "Christ and Him crucified;" and this is the one key ingredient which makes me glad to tell people I am a Seventh-day Adventist. After years of study; I have decided that to me; every doctrine is in fact centered on this amazing theme! I was more just trying to make that point. This is why I am not ashamed of any of our doctrines; and why I actually have hope in both this life, and the next...

1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

To me it is comforting to see how every doctrine meets various, specific needs we have; something like the different names of God. Each of the Bible's different names for God are actually built around various needs we all have. Like "Jehovah-Jireh" for eg. It means "The Lord will provide." The "mark of the beast" doctrine means God has won/will win the battle with evil, the resurrection means we will see our loved ones again...we could go on for a long time with all our blessings through "the doctrines of Christ..."


1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

[Loveaboveall]

That would be for an interesting study that I may have to take up someday soon!

[CwazyfoGod]

Wow all very good points. I think that once someone is baptized they are in the BODY of Christ. The membership to a church comes with it. Now the thing is I woulnd't be baptized in a baptist church if I was a Seventh-Day-Adventist. If you see my point, your baptized into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church but most of all into the Family of God.

[maco]

Wow all very good points. I think that once someone is baptized they are in the BODY of Christ. The membership to a church comes with it. Now the thing is I woulnd't be baptized in a baptist church if I was a Seventh-Day-Adventist. If you see my point, your baptized into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church but most of all into the Family of God.

People are baptized into Christ and His body. The SDA church does not even come into the picture when referring to baptism. Once the person is baptized he/she can be offered the opportunity to join the SDA church but it's not automatic through baptism.

The reason why I brought this up was because I do a prison Bible study where I had a few guys that wanted to be baptized but didn't want to be a member of the SDA. One of the elders said no one would baptize them. I think if you're in a position where someone wants to be baptized into Christ and you refuse because they don't want to join your church I don't think God will be too happy.

[bethybug]

I am glad that this question is being discussed. I have a friend who is not a minister but has baptized people because they accepted Jesus as their Savior. They are still studying and may one day be baptized into the Adventist church. If he had not baptized them no one would have. This needs to be examined some more.

[maco]

I am glad that this question is being discussed. I have a friend who is not a minister but has baptized people because they accepted Jesus as their Savior. They are still studying and may one day be baptized into the Adventist church. If he had not baptized them no one would have. This needs to be examined some more.

The Bible doesn't specify whether or not one must be ordained to baptize anyone. What that Bibe does say is that we are all priests in Christ and the great commision, which we are all involved in, tells us go out to all the world and baptize.

The true issue in baptism is the heart of the person being baptized, not the baptizer.

Many blessings,
John

[Loveaboveall]

The reason why I brought this up was because I do a prison Bible study where I had a few guys that wanted to be baptized but didn't want to be a member of the SDA. One of the elders said no one would baptize them. I think if you're in a position where someone wants to be baptized into Christ and you refuse because they don't want to join your church I don't think God will be too happy.

The important question that must be asked is why they want to be baptized but do not want to join the SDA church. If there are real doctrinal issues then they must be addressed. Unless, of course, they are scheduled for lethal injection tomorrow! Point being though is that if they are wanting baptism without joining the church of the people who have been studying with them, it sounds kind of fishy. Just be sure to get to the bottom of it.

[maco]

The important question that must be asked is why they want to be baptized but do not want to join the SDA church. If there are real doctrinal issues then they must be addressed. Unless, of course, they are scheduled for lethal injection tomorrow! Point being though is that if they are wanting baptism without joining the church of the people who have been studying with them, it sounds kind of fishy. Just be sure to get to the bottom of it.

Hi Loveaboveall,

Thanks for your reply.

There are not many denominations going into the prison. Within my study group are men of all faiths, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim even unbelievers searching.

There are many different reasons why they don't want to become a member of the SDA one of which is some struggle with the Ellen White issue. They know it's important to be baptized into Christ but they don't receive Ellen White as their Prophet. I don't believe this should prevent anyone from being baptized into Christ as the Bible commands.

Many blessings,
John

[annie1speed]

Loveaboveall wrote:
The important question that must be asked is why they want to be baptized but do not want to join the SDA church. If there are real doctrinal issues then they must be addressed. Unless, of course, they are scheduled for lethal injection tomorrow! Point being though is that if they are wanting baptism without joining the church of the people who have been studying with them, it sounds kind of fishy. Just be sure to get to the bottom of it.

I may be stepping over the line here ;) but....I have a few questions. :confused:
What does fishy sound like? :D

Is it the joining of the SDA church that saves you?

What about folks who just want to be a Christian?

What church did God add people to in the book of Acts when they were baptized?

Annie :hug:

[Loveaboveall]

Annie,

What I meant was that if a person is studying with someone and that person comes to know Jesus as their savior, in most cases they would naturally want to join the church of the people they have been studying with. If they do not there must be a reason, right? That reason could be that they had grown up believing OSAS so then once they are baptized they were saved and had no need of a church family. You could agree that this would be detrimental to their spiritual health, correct? For the record, There is no saving power in "joining" a local church. There is saving power in the blood of Jesus!

[Loveaboveall]

Maco,

Why have you told them that believing in Mrs. White is required to be a member of the SDA church? Every congregation has somewhat different baptismal vows but it is by no means a requirement that one must believe this! Even she made the statement that believing in her prophetic gift should be used as a condition of becoming a member of the SDA family!

[Loveaboveall]

RELATION
TO CHURCH FELLOWSHIP


BY FRANCIS M. WILCOX [F. M. WILCOX WAS EDITOR of
THE REVIEW AND HERALD AND MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A
"CHURCH STATESMAN." HE WAS ONE OFTHE FIVE MEN
APPOINTED BY ELLEN WHITE AS TRUSTEES TO CARE FOR
HER WRITINGS.]


AS WE CONSIDER THE SUBJECT OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND THEIR MANIFESTATION IN THE CHURCH, THE QUESTION NATURALLY ARISES, SHOULD FAITH IN THIS DOCTRINE BE MADE A TEST OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP? {2BIO 491.1}
THOSE SEEKING MEMBERSHIP IN THE CHURCH SHOULD BE CAREFULLY INSTRUCTED IN ALL THE TRUTHS OF THE GOSPEL. THEY SHOULD KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, THAT CHRIST IS THEIR SAVIOUR AND THAT THEIR SINS HAVE BEEN WASHED AWAY IN THE BLOOD SHED ON CALVARY. THEY SHOULD BE TAUGHT THAT THE TEST OF FAITH AND LOVE IS FOUND IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DIVINE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT THE LAW OF GOD CAN BE EXPRESSED IN THE LIFE ONLY AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE HEART BY THE OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT IN THE NEW COVENANT RELATIONSHIP. THEY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED IN THE EVIDENCES OF CHRIST'S SOON COMING, AND IN THE PROPHECIES POINTING OUT LAST-DAY WORLD CONDITIONS AND THE SPECIAL WORK TO BE DONE IN THE PREPARATION OF A PEOPLE TO STAND IN THE DAY OF THE LORD. {2BIO 491.2}

CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT THEIR OWN, BUT CHRIST'S, AND THEREFORE THEY SHOULD HONOR HIM IN THEIR BODIES, HIS TEMPLES, BY WEARING PROPER ATTIRE, AND PROVIDING SUCH FOOD AND DRINK AS MAKE FOR STRENGTH AND NOT FOR DRUNKENNESS; AND THAT THEIR LIVES AND PROPERTY SHOULD BE PLACED UPON THE ALTAR OF SACRIFICIAL SERVICE FOR OTHERS AS THE SPIRIT SHALL INDICATE. THEY SHOULD BE INSTRUCTED IN CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND POLITY, IN THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS MOVEMENT, IN THE DOCTRINE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS, AND ESPECIALLY THE GIFT OF THE SPIRITOF PROPHECY, WHICH HEAVEN HAS USED SO LARGELY IN FOSTERING THE WORK


492

OF THIS MOVEMENT. PARTICULARLY SHOULD THEY BE TAUGHT THAT THESE GIFTS ANSWER TO THE WORD OF PROPHECY IN THEIR MANIFESTATION IN THE REMNANT CHURCH. {2BIO 491.3}

INASMUCH AS THE LABORS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE HAVE ENTERED SO LARGELY INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT, CANDIDATES FOR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP SHOULD BE MADE ACQUAINTED WITH THE DIVINE MINISTRY TO WHICH SHE WAS CALLED, AND THE INFLUENCE OF HER LABORS AND WRITINGS THROUGH THE YEARS. OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE AFFORDED THEM TO READ HER PUBLISHED BOOKS. WHEN THIS INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN CANDIDATES, BUT LITTLE QUESTION EVER WILL BE RAISED AS TO FAITH IN THE DOCTRINE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS BEING MADE A TEST OF CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. {2BIO 492.1}

IF, AS THE RESULT OF THIS INVESTIGATION, THE ONE CONTEMPLATING CHURCH MEMBERSHIP ARRIVES AT SETTLED CONVICTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS DOCTRINE, HE NATURALLY WILL NOT WISH TO UNITE HIS INTERESTS WITH A CHURCH THAT HOLDS IT AS A PART OF ITS RELIGIOUS FAITH. IN ANY EVENT HE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO WAIT UNTIL HE HAS HAD TIME AND OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE MATURE STUDY OF THE QUESTION. {2BIO 492.2}

IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE IN FULL SYMPATHY WITH HIS ADVENTIST BRETHREN REGARDING THEIR FAITH AND OBJECTIVES AND THEIR CHURCH POLITY AND ORGANIZATION, HE STILL FEELS DOUBTS OVER THE DOCTRINE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND THEIR EXERCISE IN THE CHURCH, BUT HAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE FULLEST AND FREEST EXERCISE OF FAITH IN THESE GIFTS ON THE PART OF HIS BRETHREN, AND TO THE FREE USE OF THE INSTRUCTION WHICH HAS COME TO THE CHURCH FROM THE GIFT OF PROPHECY, HE NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE EXCLUDED FROM CHURCH MEMBERSHIP. {2BIO 492.3

ELDER J. N. ANDREWS WRITES:

WE THEREFORE DO NOT TEST THE WORLD IN ANY MANNER BY THESE GIFTS. NOR DO WE, IN OUR INTERCOURSE WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS BODIES WHO ARE STRIVING TO WALK IN THE FEAR OF GOD, IN ANY WAY MAKE THESE A TEST OF CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. UPON NONE OF THESE PERSONS DO WE URGE THESE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD, NOR TEST THEM BY THEIR TEACHING.


note that they are speaking of church membership and not baptism. To believe in the SOP is not a "salvation" issue that one must hold to be saved, it is only in the belief in Jesus as your savior.

Doctrines or Church Membership Do Not Take Place of Conversion.--All, high or low, if they are unconverted, are on one common platform. Men may turn from one doctrine to another. This is being done, and will be done. Papists may change from Catholicism to Protestantism; yet they may know nothing of the meaning of the words, "A new heart also will I give you." Accepting new theories, and uniting with a church, do not bring new life to anyone, even though the church with which he unites may be established on the true foundation. Connection with a church does not take the place of conversion.
291
To subscribe the name to a church creed is not of the least value to anyone if the heart is not truly changed. . . . {Ev 290.2}
We must have more than an intellectual belief in the truth. Many of the Jews were convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, but they were too proud and ambitious to surrender. They decided to resist the truth, and they maintained their opposition. They did not receive into the heart the truth as it is in Jesus. When truth is held as truth only by the conscience, when the heart is not stimulated and made receptive, only the mind is affected. But when the truth is received as truth by the heart, it has passed through the conscience, and has captivated the soul with its pure principles. It is placed in the heart by the Holy Spirit, who reveals its beauty to the mind, that its transforming power may be seen in the character.--Review and Herald, Feb. 14, 1899. {Ev 291.1}

[RC_NewProtestants]

People are baptized into Christ and His body. The SDA church does not even come into the picture when referring to baptism. Once the person is baptized he/she can be offered the opportunity to join the SDA church but it's not automatic through baptism.

The reason why I brought this up was because I do a prison Bible study where I had a few guys that wanted to be baptized but didn't want to be a member of the SDA. One of the elders said no one would baptize them. I think if you're in a position where someone wants to be baptized into Christ and you refuse because they don't want to join your church I don't think God will be too happy.
There are Adventist pastors who will baptize people who are not going to join the SDA church. You might need to search one out for your ministry. You are right that there is no Biblical call as to who can baptize someone else. I think any believer can do it but in your situation in a prison ministry it is probably best to use an officially recognized pastor to do the baptizing.

[annie1speed]

Do only preachers baptize people in the Adventist faith? Or can any believer baptize people?

[annie1speed]

Maco,

Why have you told them that believing in Mrs. White is required to be a member of the SDA church? Every congregation has somewhat different baptismal vows but it is by no means a requirement that one must believe this! Even she made the statement that believing in her prophetic gift should be used as a condition of becoming a member of the SDA family!
Loveaboveall,

Did you mean to say should, or should not?

Annie

[maco]

Loveaboveall,

Did you mean to say should, or should not?

Annie

Hi Annie,

Its the fact that the SDA has Ellen White as its Prophet, not that you have to believe in her.

I struggle with receiving her as a prophet but I was told I did't need to believe in her to become a member of the SDA. That was a relief because the SDA has a lot of truth in it. So I was baptized about a year ago only to learn that it was a play of words. You don't have to believe in her to become a member but you will have to as time goes on. Their feelings are that someone would not be able to read all her writing before they got baptized but they expect you to read them sometime after your baptism and believe.

John

[Loveaboveall]

Annie,

Thankyou for pointing out my error in spelling!:thumbsup:

Maco,

What you must understand is not that you have to believe in Mrs. White as a prophet. As and adventist you should understand that all of our doctrines are biblically based, not White based. If you do not believe this than why did you join the SDA church? I am not in any way asking you to leave just asking a question. If you do in fact believe that all of our doctrines are biblically based then why do you have a problem with SDA's who believe in Mrs. White as a prophet when she points us to the bible?

I have the sneaking suspicion however that you are under the impression that several of our doctrines are not biblical, i.e. Temperance. Try as Doc has urged you to do and post in the main forum there you will find many more people who can discuss this with you!

Have you read any of Mrs. White's books? I am asking honestly. If you have not I would urge you to, maybe start with Steps to Christ or Desire of Ages.

[GlorifyHim]

It should be noted that there is only ONE way to become a Seventh day Adventist ....

It is by receiving at least 50% of the popular vote of those who happen to be in attendance on a particular sabbath morning. It simply does not matter that an SDA Pastor has baptized you. He does not have the power to grant you membership. Neither does the baptism according to SDA rules. It is kind of like a Club. You could call it Club Adventist.

In the end ... it does not matter WHO baptized you. What matters is that you receive 50% of the vote.

[JonMiller]

I recently questioned the teaching on baptism into the SDA.

I believe that when one is baptized that person is baptized into the body of Christ, not the SDA church.

I believe that a person should be baptized into Christ and then offered to become a member of the SDA if the choose to do so. I ran into some friction with viewing my thoughts. They said all the people who were baptized in the NT were joining the local church but when I quoted from Acts 8:37-39 how Philip baptized the eunuch and then was taken off by the HS. The eunuch wasn't signed up for membership to any local church he just went away rejoicing as a member of Christ's church.

Acts 8:37-39 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may.'' And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'' So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing.

Of course they didn't see it my way.

I struggle with this...:scratch:

What are your thoughts?

Many blessings,
John

This practice of the SDA church is flat out wrong and comes from the time when many thought that we were the only remnant church.

JM

[GlorifyHim]

Do only preachers baptize people in the Adventist faith? Or can any believer baptize people?

Biblically speaking ... anyone can baptize. SDA speaking ... it is "usually" done by a Pastor. This is done so that the Pastor can sit in judgment of the person's good works. For instance .... I have personally witnessed a Pastor deny baptism to someone who had a smoking or drinking problem. And the drinking problem can just be drinking tea or coffee. Ellen White stated that drinking coffee is a "sin". So ... this has long been an SDA tradition. And the Pastors like to look for sin in those who would want to come to Christ.

The Bible says to come to Christ as you are. But the SDA church says to come AFTER you have victory over certain sins.

Don't get me wrong. I am a faithful SDA. My spouse is an SDA Pastor. But this church does have a few bad traditions.

[sentipente]

Upon reflection I don't see how baptism can be a requirement in today's society. It is a holdover from ancient days. This is not the way we join groups today. I have no problems if someone wants to participate in an ancient practice but it has no relevance to their eternal destiny. Jesus saved the worlds before we were baptized.

[JonMiller]

Baptism is suppose to be an outward/public sign of what has gone on in the heart.

That is at least what I was told.

JM

[sentipente]

Baptism is suppose to be an outward/public sign of what has gone on in the heart.

That is at least what I was told.

JM
Surely you don't simply accept what you are told.

[JonMiller]

Of course I don't.

It is also what reason tells me.

It is just that in this case, they aren't different...

JM

[moicherie]

I suspect the reason why baptism = membership of said church (I assume other churches operate the same way?) churches are defending their territory. In the NT model the then apostolic church was the only Christian church in town. Now we have so many different Christian denominations. Do we really think a church is going to baptise someone and then expect him or her to go to another denomination down the road and lose the potential tithes and offerings er I mean lose that person? I think people should choose to be either baptisef into Chrisitianity or baptised into Adventism. But because we have a 'We are the remnant' mindset we are not going to change our modus operandi when it comes to baptism.

[JonMiller]

I personally think that we should baptize people who don't join the SDA church. I think that prison ministries often does.

JM

[mva1985]

[quote]

No, Jesus said this.

Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
(Joh 3:3)



Does it really make sense to have them join a church that they don't know much about? Would you make a decision to marry a woman just simply by knowing her name and date of birth?



All of the doctrines should come secondary?

But how can you make a decision to be baptized if you don't really know what you are being baptized into?

Doctrines/teachings inform you of what you ought to believe about Jesus Christ.

Without them you really can't know Him.
Fantastic reply to this question!!!

[mva1985]

Upon reflection I don't see how baptism can be a requirement in today's society. It is a holdover from ancient days. This is not the way we join groups today. I have no problems if someone wants to participate in an ancient practice but it has no relevance to their eternal destiny. Jesus saved the worlds before we were baptized.

My question to you would be do you partake of communion? It is just an ancient practice. Also, I would ask what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?

[sentipente]

My question to you would be do you partake of communion? It is just an ancient practice. Also, I would ask what was the purpose of Jesus' baptism?
Your question assumes that I believe that it is wrong to get baptized. I clearly said that individuals have the right to reproduce any ancient ritual they choose to replicate.

[mva1985]

Your post does not say it is wrong to be baptized but it surely does imply that it may not be necessary. Wow! I don't see how anyone can say that baptism is not necessary.

But you did not answer my question about communion or about Jesus' baptism.

[sentipente]

Your post does not say it is wrong to be baptized but it surely does imply that it may not be necessary. Wow! I don't see how anyone can say that baptism is not necessary.

But you did not answer my question about communion or about Jesus' baptism.
This is not a thread about communion. Now, prove that baptism is necessary and what it is necessary for.

[mva1985]

Hope these texts help some:

Romans 6
"1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin."


1 Peter 3
"20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."

[sentipente]

MVA, how can you use a text from the first century to prove that a first century ritual is still needed in the twenty-first century?

[mva1985]

Because the Bible is relevant no matter what century we are in.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

In all seriousness I can't believe that there is even a discussion going on as to whether or not baptism is relevant. Sure there are circumstances where it maybe impossible for some one to be baptized (i.e. the thief on the cross), in those circumstances Jesus was baptized for him.

[sentipente]

MVA, don't confuse God and the Bible. They are different. The Bible is a book ABOUT God. It is not God.

[mva1985]

2 Tim. 3
"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

While the Bible is not God it most certainly is His revelation to us about Him. It is God-breathed. It is also the standard by which we will be judged. As the verse above says the Holy Scriptures contain everything that we need to make us wise for salvation.

[moicherie]

Your post does not say it is wrong to be baptized but it surely does imply that it may not be necessary. Wow! I don't see how anyone can say that baptism is not necessary.

But you did not answer my question about communion or about Jesus' baptism.
If baptism is necessary thne the thief on the cross wasted his time talking.

[moicherie]

2 Tim. 3
"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

While the Bible is not God it most certainly is His revelation to us about Him. It is God-breathed. It is also the standard by which we will be judged. As the verse above says the Holy Scriptures contain everything that we need to make us wise for salvation.

We will be judged based on our relationship with the Creator not how well we followed a book. The leaders of Jesus day followed the Torah but look what they still did. Whats more important how well you follow a book on how to treat your spouse or how well you really treat your spouse?

[mva1985]

If baptism is necessary thne the thief on the cross wasted his time talking.

You have not read all most posts concerning this, because I address this very issue.

[sentipente]

You have not read all most posts concerning this, because I address this very issue.
What else needs to be read? Are you suggesting you have a text with an exception? Please post it.

[mva1985]

I have provided enough texts for anyone really interested in looking into this matter of baptism. If you have a genuine question concerning baptism then you should do a prayerful study on it and examine all texts regarding the matter.

It is now time for you to provide texts saying that baptism is not necessary. Other then just saying that it is an ancient practice and we don't need to do it.

As for the thief on the cross we know for a fact that he will be saved - Jesus said so. What we don't know for 100% is whether or not he was ever baptized previous to being nailed on the cross.

The Sabbath and communion are ancient practices and I don't hear you saying that we should not observe them.

Or how about the eating of only clean meat, another ancient practice.

Should I go on.

[sentipente]

IIt is now time for you to provide texts saying that baptism is not necessary. Other then just saying that it is an ancient practice and we don't need to do it.

I never said you don't need to do it. That is what you are reading in to my post.

[mva1985]

Upon reflection I don't see how baptism can be a requirement in today's society. It is a holdover from ancient days. This is not the way we join groups today. I have no problems if someone wants to participate in an ancient practice but it has no relevance to their eternal destiny. Jesus saved the worlds before we were baptized.

You said that you don't see how it can be a requirement in today's society. So what exactly does that mean?

And that it has no relevance to our eternal destiny. Again, I ask why did Jesus do it? And do you practice communion - another ancient practice?

Your post above to refresh your memory.

[sentipente]

The fact that something is not a requirement does not prevent anyone from practicing it.

[mva1985]

I leave you with one last text. It seems clear that some need to study this out for themselves. As it should be. One of the things Adventists have always taught was to search things out for ourselves.


Acts 2:37-39 (NIV)

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

[sentipente]

Again, you are still in the first century.

[mva1985]

Do you receive any guidance from the Bible or is it all just OT and First century stuff to you?

[sentipente]

One question, MVA. Do you think we should practice the rite of baptism exactly the way it was practiced in the first century?

[sentipente]

Do you receive any guidance from the Bible or is it all just OT and First century stuff to you?
The Bible is the best source of guidance modern man could ever desire. But if you continue jumping to the unwarranted conclusion reflected in your last phrase it is no surprise you end up posting the falsehoods you posted in the Traditional section. May the God have mercy on your soul.

[mva1985]

One question, MVA. Do you think we should practice the rite of baptism exactly the way it was practiced in the first century?
Yes, baptism by immersion.

[sentipente]

Yes, baptism by immersion.
Should we immerse in precisely the way they immersed?

[mva1985]

The Bible is the best source of guidance modern man could ever desire. But if you continue jumping to the unwarranted conclusion reflected in your last phrase it is no surprise you end up posting the falsehoods you posted in the Traditional section. May the God have mercy on your soul.
I think of all my posts I only have maybe two or three in the traditional forum, all the rest are in the progressive forum.

I will admit that I more align my beliefs with traditional Adventism.

Please feel free to point out any of the falsehoods that I have written. Most of my posts I have used scripture to back my position. It does not matter if someone disagrees with me, but we need to make sure that our thinking is in line with the Bible - for that is the standard by which we will be judged.

[sentipente]

I was referring to the last post you made in the Trad section that Honor complimented you on.

[mva1985]

Should we immerse in precisely the way they immersed?
Do we know if they immersed by dipping forward or backward? I think that either is fine as long as you are immersed in water.

One of the most moving baptisms I ever witnessed took place in a pool at one of our youth camps. No baptismal robes just jeans and a tee shirt. Very nice!

[mva1985]

I was referring to the last post you made in the Trad section that Honor complimented you on.
I would have to go back and check I did not know that someone complimented me on a post.

[sentipente]

Do we know if they immersed by dipping forward or backward? I think that either is fine as long as you are immersed in water.

One of the most moving baptisms I ever witnessed took place in a pool at one of our youth camps. No baptismal robes just jeans and a tee shirt. Very nice!
So you think it is fine to deviate from the manner in which the first century Christians immersed? Is this your position?

[sentipente]

we need to make sure that our thinking is in line with the Bible - for that is the standard by which we will be judged.
The Bible does not claim to be the standard by which we will be judged so I would like to know where you got this idea from.

[mva1985]

So you think it is fine to deviate from the manner in which the first century Christians immersed? Is this your position?
How is baptism by immersion deviating from Bible baptism?

[mva1985]

The Bible does not claim to be the standard by which we will be judged so I would like to know where you got this idea from.
If I quote a text are you just going to say that I am stuck in the first century?

[mva1985]

The Bible does not claim to be the standard by which we will be judged so I would like to know where you got this idea from.
Check out Isa. 8:20 and Romans 2:12

[sentipente]

Isaiah 8:20
Romans 2:12

[sentipente]

MVA, as you can see those passages refer to the law of liberty by which all men will be judged. They do not refer to the Bible as you claimed. You knew that so why did you make an unsubstantiated claim?

[mva1985]

MVA, as you can see those passages refer to the law of liberty by which all men will be judged. They do not refer to the Bible as you claimed. You knew that so why did you make an unsubstantiated claim?
Where do we find the Law and the Testimony? In the Bible.

[sentipente]

I will admit that I more align my beliefs with traditional Adventism.

Since the Trads are enforcing their rights not to have Progressives post iin their sub-forum we will have to continue this in the Main Forum. As a self-identified Traditional you cannot post here.

[moicherie]

I think of all my posts I only have maybe two or three in the traditional forum, all the rest are in the progressive forum.

I will admit that I more align my beliefs with traditional Adventism.

Please feel free to point out any of the falsehoods that I have written. Most of my posts I have used scripture to back my position. It does not matter if someone disagrees with me, but we need to make sure that our thinking is in line with the Bible - for that is the standard by which we will be judged.
I am prepared to be corrected but I thought Traditional Adventists could not post in this section? After all that section tried to run Sentipente 'outta town'?
Just wondering?

[mva1985]

Since the Trads are enforcing their rights not to have Progressives post iin their sub-forum we will have to continue this in the Main Forum. As a self-identified Traditional you cannot post here.
Personally, I have no problems with someone who identifies themselves as a "progressive" posting in a "traditional" forum. But that is just one man's opinion.

Isn't it interesting that people who tend to be more liberal or progressive are usually the ones that are the least tolerant? I am willing to discuss many matters with all who what to I don't really care if someone claims to be traditional or progressive.

[moicherie]

Personally, I have no problems with someone who identifies themselves as a "progressive" posting in a "traditional" forum. But that is just one man's opinion.

Isn't it interesting that people who tend to be more liberal or progressive are usually the ones that are the least tolerant? I am willing to discuss many matters with all who what to I don't really care if someone claims to be traditional or progressive.
Well I suppose being told 'get the hell out' like Sentipente was told in the Traditional section is the height of tolerance and politeness? lol

[sentipente]

Isn't it interesting that people who tend to be more liberal or progressive are usually the ones that are the least tolerant?
It is should be obvious that this was not necessary. We are most accurate when we characterize ourselves than when we try to characterize others.

[mva1985]

Well I suppose being told 'get the hell out' like Sentipente was told in the Traditional section is the height of tolerance and politeness? lol
I would not be able to agree with someone being told that in that manner.

But I can only speak for myself not others.

[mva1985]

As far as tolerance is concerned - you are not wanting me to post here because I am trying to share from the Bible about baptism.

I know what I believe and have shared that along with some texts. What exactly am I being banned for? Sharing from the Bible?

[sentipente]

As far as tolerance is concerned - you are not wanting me to post here because I am trying to share from the Bible about baptism.

I know what I believe and have shared that along with some texts. What exactly am I being banned for? Sharing from the Bible?
You may not have read my post so I'll repeat myself. We can continue this discussion in the Main Forum. We can provide the link to this thread but any debate you and I have on the subject will have to continue in the Main Forum. Don't try to play the victim here. You won't get any sympathizers.

[mva1985]

You may not have read my post so I'll repeat myself. We can continue this discussion in the Main Forum. We can provide the link to this thread but any debate you and I have on the subject will have to continue in the Main Forum. Don't try to play the victim here. You won't get any sympathizers.
LOL, I have never really felt the need to have people sympathize with me. I mean come on I'm an SDA - we suffer some for our beliefs at least in the USA. Others suffer alot more in other countries.

[sentipente]

LOL, I have never really felt the need to have people sympathize with me. I mean come on I'm an SDA - we suffer some for our beliefs at least in the USA. Others suffer alot more in other countries.
OK. I assume that was your last post here. See you in the Main Forum.

[mva1985]

OK. I assume that was your last post here. See you in the Main Forum.
I certainly hope that I can come back and visit from time to time. :-)

[Nutella]

I was baptized recently and asked my pastor about this. His answer was that I don't have to become a SDA member, if I don't want to become a member.

I was baptized into the Body of Christ and CHOSE to become a SDA member, but I didn't have to.

I believe that when one is baptized that person is baptized into the body of Christ, not the SDA church.

I believe that a person should be baptized into Christ and then offered to become a member of the SDA if the choose to do so.

[GlorifyHim]

Again , I will say , It is IMPOSSIBLE to be baptized into the SDA church. The church manual does not allow for it. The only way you can become a member is to be baptized into the body of Christ and then afterwards be VOTED into membership.
No Pastor has the power to make you a member and the baptism does not have the power to make you a member either. ONLY 50% of the vote of those present that day does.

[sentipente]

GlorifyHim is correct technically. Baptism does not grant one membership into the Adventist church because Adventists are not the only ones who are administering baptism. However, the church doest consider baptism to be the gateway into the church indicating that by that they mean baptism according to Adventist beliefs and doctrines. Once one looks carefully at the teachings and practice it becomes very confusing. Normally, churches vote to accept candidates as members of the church subject to their baptism, but sometimes the pastor baptizes an individual without the knowledge of the church membership. I guess confusion is the only word that applies.

[GlorifyHim]

I am not sure what the confusion is about. Baptism and membership are separate. A person can be baptized by a Pastor or even ANY Christian. He can then come to the SDA church and request membership via profession of faith. Again ... the ONLY way you become a member is through a successful vote of at least 50% of those in attendance on that particular Sabbath.
So the Pastor can go around baptizing people into Christ without telling the "church". The only reason to tell the church about it would be IF they wanted to be members of the SDA church.