Baptism discussion.

[tall73]

This is a conversation that started in the progressive forum in the thread regarding how progressives can change the church.

The traditional forum then started a discussion on the issues of that thread.

http://christianforums.com/t6487769


The discussion centered around the possibility of leaving time, when desired, for those who want to be baptized into Christ to then later assent to all 28 and be voted in as a member.

One question raised was whether we are baptized into the church in the Adventist system. I did not feel I could answer there without going into debate. So I posted this here where all sides are free to debate.


13. Do you accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy and that people of every nation, race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship? Do you desire to be a member of this local congregation of the world church?

The 13th vow indicates that one of the requirements for baptism is joining the denomination and the local congregation of such denomination.

DL suggested that the vow was taken after baptism, so you could be baptized but not join.

However, the church manual also says the following:


Public Examination—The church has a right to know concerning the faith and attitude of every individual applying for church membership. It is proper for a public examination of all candidates to be held prior to their baptism, preferably in the presence of the church. If this should prove to be impracticable, then it should be brought before the church board or a committee appointed by the church board, such as the board of elders, whose report should then be rendered to the church prior to the baptism. When the alternative mentioned under the preceding section is used, opportunity should be given for candidates to give public expression of their desire to unite with the church and to be identified with and by the church.

 

[OntheDL]

DL suggested that the vow was taken after baptism, so you could be baptized but not join.

However, the church manual also says the following:


Public Examination—The church has a right to know concerning the faith and attitude of every individual applying for church membership. It is proper for a public examination of all candidates to be held prior to their baptism, preferably in the presence of the church. If this should prove to be impracticable, then it should be brought before the church board or a committee appointed by the church board, such as the board of elders, whose report should then be rendered to the church prior to the baptism. When the alternative mentioned under the preceding section is used, opportunity should be given for candidates to give public expression of their desire to unite with the church and to be identified with and by the church.

I highlighted the keyword/phrase here: It is proper, but not required or mandatory.

I have never seen this actually happen before baptism. If anything I can see a person with alot of well-known baggage subject to this kind 'scrutiny' before baptism.

 

[StormyOne]

in the adventist church baptism and membership in the church are seen as one and the same.... the reality is that if someone accepts Christ, that should be enough for baptism.... becoming a member should be a separate issue/process IMO.....

 

[moicherie]

I highlighted the keyword/phrase here: It is proper, but not required or mandatory.

I have never seen this actually happen before baptism. If anything I can see a person with alot of well-known baggage subject to this kind 'scrutiny' before baptism.

It is a common practise in most UK Adventist churches (I did not realised it was not performed elsewhere in other parts of the world)

 

[moicherie]

in the adventist church baptism and membership in the church are seen as one and the same.... the reality is that if someone accepts Christ, that should be enough for baptism.... becoming a member should be a separate issue/process IMO.....

I suspect baptism = membership = more tithe?

 

[tall73]

It was done in the churches I have seen too.

DL the BAPTISMAL vows require support of the church.

What do you think baptismal vows are for?

Are they to lie long enough to get in the tank and then thumb their nose at the church?

 

[OntheDL]

It was done in the churches I have seen too.

DL the BAPTISMAL vows require support of the church.

What do you think baptismal vows are for?

Are they to lie long enough to get in the tank and then thumb their nose at the church?

You only need to look at the fact that the baptismal vow takes place AFTER baptism.

If it's the other way around, then you can say they are baptised onto the SDA church, not Christ.

But it isn't the case.

 

[OntheDL]

I suspect baptism = membership = more tithe?

Of course. That's what they have been doing:

quantity > quality. It's all about the money.

 

[tall73]

You only need to look at the fact that the baptismal vow takes place AFTER baptism.

If it's the other way around, then you can say they are baptised onto the SDA church, not Christ.

But it isn't the case.

I still haven't found that they do occur afterward. I have never seen them done afterward.


Church Manual:

Welcoming Candidates—After the candidates have, in the presence of the church membership or other properly appointed body, answered the questions of the vow in the affirmative, or assurance has been given to the church that such answers have already been given, the church body should be asked to vote on their acceptance into the church, subject to baptism, which ordinance should not be unduly delayed.

Now I have often seen the vote done afterwards. But I have never seen the actual vows done afterwards, and it appears to be anticipated that the vows come first, then the baptism.

Are you officially married before your vows or after? It is contingent on the vows.


But of course that is all academic. Are you suggesting that someone like Crimson for instance should go ahead and get baptized KNOWING that she cannot at this time accept one of our doctrines and then just say "oh, and that vow part, we can skip that"?

Now if the church is willing to institute that, then great! But that is not current reality.

 

[StormyOne]

You only need to look at the fact that the baptismal vow takes place AFTER baptism.

If it's the other way around, then you can say they are baptised onto the SDA church, not Christ.

But it isn't the case.

every adventist church I have ever belonged to the vows are read and agreed to BEFORE the person was baptized....

 

[JonMiller]

This is a huge problem with our church. Not all pastors follow it, I think.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

I think it is left over from when we considered ourselves the only Christians who were saved (Remnant theology).

JM

 

[tall73]

This is a huge problem with our church. Not all pastors follow it, I think.

JM

Agreed, not all do.

 

[OntheDL]

every adventist church I have ever belonged to the vows are read and agreed to BEFORE the person was baptized....

Obvious you and I go to different churches and witnessing different baptisms.

The latest baptisms I saw (in different churches) the persons were baptised and afterwards no baptismal vows were read.

So the change has been in the works.

 

[NightEternal]

Some pastors read the vows and have the candidates assent to them on the platform publicly before the congregation. Some have them assent privately in the pastors office.

Regardless, it is always done before the baptism in every case I have seen.

 

[StormyOne]

Some pastors read the vows and have the candidates assent to them on the platform publicly before the congregation. Some have them assent privately in the pastors office.

Regardless, it is always done before the baptism in every case I have seen.

correct NE, and DL you are probably correct, the churches we attend are different....as I said the vows are always read and affirmed prior to the person or persons being dipped....

 

[OntheDL]

Some pastors read the vows and have the candidates assent to them on the platform publicly before the congregation. Some have them assent privately in the pastors office.

Regardless, it is always done before the baptism in every case I have seen.

I can't speak for what you have seen, but for the 3 people that I studied with and recently went for baptism, one I was present throughout the process, no baptismal vows were read before or after, publicly or privately. He was accepted as a member after baptism.

The other two were baptised in another church, not sure if the vows were read or not. But they didn't become members of that church after baptism.

 

[moicherie]

You only need to look at the fact that the baptismal vow takes place AFTER baptism.

If it's the other way around, then you can say they are baptised onto the SDA church, not Christ.

But it isn't the case.

The vows take place before baptism not before that is the standard practise in the UK I have never heard or seen it done afterward. Probably a practise done where you are?

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Thanks for creating this thread, Tall.

As you stated, that really is my problem. I cannot stand before God and vow things which are a lie, simply to be baptised. My feeling is that He understands this and will guide me to being ready, or the proper place for it.

Now, I should probably ask my own Pastor how it's done in our church as I have never witnessed one there. (Only been present for one in my life, apart from my baby Christianing)

When he brought baptism up to me he said there shouldn't be much to study as I had done the Amazing Facts course. I pretty much just figured that was just to make sure you knew basic truths, I didn't realize there were vows during it.

My ideal situation is to just go and vow my belief in Jesus and that I want to follow Him. I want the new birth, I want the death of my old self..But I'm just not seeing that possible right now. Not in the sense of the actual physical baptism.

 

[OntheDL]

Thanks for creating this thread, Tall.

As you stated, that really is my problem. I cannot stand before God and vow things which are a lie, simply to be baptised. My feeling is that He understands this and will guide me to being ready, or the proper place for it.

Now, I should probably ask my own Pastor how it's done in our church as I have never witnessed one there. (Only been present for one in my life, apart from my baby Christianing)

When he brought baptism up to me he said there shouldn't be much to study as I had done the Amazing Facts course. I pretty much just figured that was just to make sure you knew basic truths, I didn't realize there were vows during it.

My ideal situation is to just go and vow my belief in Jesus and that I want to follow Him. I want the new birth, I want the death of my old self..But I'm just not seeing that possible right now. Not in the sense of the actual physical baptism.

Sarah,

You said you studied the Amazing Facts course, and yet you said you do not know much about the bible. I don't see how that's possible. The AF studies are GREAT! Unless you didn't really follow the course. What are your questions? I don't see you ask questions or participate in bible discussions.

About your take on EGW and the baptism, I can't say I'm offended, but I'm definitely taken back by it. You can't go by what's been said here. If you have not read any of her writing, you are not in the position to judge.

Lastly, Jesus said except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.

If you have issues that you can not be baptised by the adventist church, you might have to start looking for another church. I'm sorry that I have to say this to you, but this is the truth.

Feel free to reply to this post or PM me. God bless!