How do Progressive Adventists handle the baptismal vows?

[Sophia7]

Thanks for the insight on the progressive handling of these issues...

I've since done additional checking around, discussing with a pastor, etc. One progressive pastor (from a distance away from here) alters the vows to say "I understand" instead of "I believe" and then simply leaves it at (paraphrased... I don't remember his exact quote) 'you don't have to believe this, but the denomination expects that you will not teach against it'. In other words, just avoid the questionable doctrines entirely and teach only what is proper (so long as it doesn't speak against any of the fundamentals).

Keep me in your prayers because I've been (and continue to be) in a challenging situation standing up for the truth.

Wow, I wouldn't feel comfortable bringing people into a church that took that approach to the fundamental beliefs, and I know from personal experience how hard it is to disagree with certain teachings but not to be able to say anything. I couldn't do that for very long. Praying for you in your difficult situation.

 

[bugkiller]

I recently looked at my baptism certificate from Nov. 18, 1972 and found a whole list of vows on the back that I have broken. (Keeping the ten commandments including the Sabbath, not eating unclean food, believing in EGW, etc.) I feel a little better seeing how I never signed and dated my name at the bottom of the vow page! Maybe I had a premonition.....

That is kinda sneaky isn't it? Vows on the back, wow! I have never heard of the reciepant of a certificate haveing to sign it. That makes it morelike a contact than a certificate. I think of a certificate as a testimony or reward.

bugkiller

 

[BigRedBus]

One progressive pastor (from a distance away from here) alters the vows to say "I understand" instead of "I believe" and then simply leaves it at (paraphrased... I don't remember his exact quote) 'you don't have to believe this, but the denomination expects that you will not teach against it'. In other words, just avoid the questionable doctrines entirely and teach only what is proper (so long as it doesn't speak against any of the fundamentals).

To me, that seems like a really pragmatic compromise solution. The message it gives out is "the person is more important than their beliefs". This oughtn't be a baptismal statement though... it's a membership procedure. But why create the situation in the first place? Are we really that bothered about having, or even trying to insist on, that degree of homogeneity in belief? How has it ever helped us in the past?

The only thing you really need to believe for a baptism is "Christ died for my sins and I accept His forgiveness". Beyond that, it's all one great big negotiable grey area.

 

[ricker]

That is kinda sneaky isn't it? Vows on the back, wow! I have never heard of the reciepant of a certificate haveing to sign it. That makes it morelike a contact than a certificate. I think of a certificate as a testimony or reward.

bugkiller

Yeh, it says in big letters at the top: Baptisimal Vows, and had a place at the bottom to sign and date it.

I like to think of tho vows as being with the denomination, and not God. I guess I didn't sign it anyway.

I wonder if Baptists and others who practice believers baptism have 13 or so vows on the back of their certificates.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Yeh, it says in big letters at the top: Baptisimal Vows, and had a place at the bottom to sign and date it.

I like to think of tho vows as being with the denomination, and not God. I guess I didn't sign it anyway.

I wonder if Baptists and others who practice believers baptism have 13 or so vows on the back of their certificates.

Progressive pastors are in a difficult position. I cannot imagine the amount of pressure such a pastor must feel.

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

I wonder if Baptists and others who practice believers baptism have 13 or so vows on the back of their certificates.

No, they don't.

 

[sentipente]

I see no biblical basis for baptism as a requirement. I think we erroneously believe that something is biblical, as in required by the Bible, because it is practiced in the Bible. I know of no congregation that will refuse you entry if you don't choose to be baptised and the Father does not need you to be baptized to be a member of His family.

 

[AzA]

I respect the baptismal vows I took when I was 12 as a snapshot of things I was comfortable studying, explaining, affirming, and teaching when I was 12.

 

[StormyOne]

I respect the baptismal vows I took when I was 12 as a snapshot of things I was comfortable studying, explaining, affirming, and teaching when I was 12.

when I was baptized at 9 yrs old, there were no 28 fundamentals.... like you I think the vows taken at that time were satisfactory for that time....

 

[AzA]

I think it's really not right to treat the baptismal thing like a marriage.
End outcome is that people feel they're going through a divorce if ever things change for them -- and that's painful.

 

[StormyOne]

I think it's really not right to treat the baptismal thing like a marriage.
End outcome is that people feel they're going through a divorce if ever things change for them -- and that's painful.

hmmm that is an applicable analogy....

 

[M-Class]

I said I would share more light on my question at some point.

I still can't give the complete story... but I will share what I can without compromising the identity of those involved.

I'm involved in a church planting. Through the process of being involved with a church planting, some events have occurred which have caused me to re-evaluate exactly what it is that we will be teaching newcomers. After careful study I have concluded that I no longer believe several of our fundamentals and our baptismal vows (which reference the 28 fundamentals), nor can I honestly teach others to believe them either. I've been completely open with our core group about this, and a few others in the group also openly admit issues with some of the fundamentals (although not nearly as strongly as I do).

The question about what progressives do keeps coming up in our group, thus the original question of how progressives (and progressive churches) handle the vows.

The question is more for the sake of group research than for myself personally. I already feel a leading on the matter (which does not include the denomination). I fully expect that the remainder of our group will in the end not share in the same. I fully expect to be resigning from leadership at any moment. Honestly, I'm surprised the dialog and my role has gone on as long as it has now (several months). I'm led to keep sharing my voice until my integrity is put on the line while not causing infighting, so that is what I am presently doing. If infighting begins or my integrity is put at stake then I know I am finished.

Prayers are appreciated.

 

[AzA]

Blessings, M-Class.

If your church plant will be structured around "making better Adventists" then I can understand why you would want to leave. But that's not the only model for a Christian fellowship -- even an Adventist one. Perhaps the group might be willing to countenance a different mission: supporting members' development and discipling.
And none of that need have anything to do with your own convictions or what you choose to identify as.

Blessings as you walk your own path too.

 

[StormyOne]

I said I would share more light on my question at some point.

I still can't give the complete story... but I will share what I can without compromising the identity of those involved.

I'm involved in a church planting. Through the process of being involved with a church planting, some events have occurred which have caused me to re-evaluate exactly what it is that we will be teaching newcomers. After careful study I have concluded that I no longer believe several of our fundamentals and our baptismal vows (which reference the 28 fundamentals), nor can I honestly teach others to believe them either. I've been completely open with our core group about this, and a few others in the group also openly admit issues with some of the fundamentals (although not nearly as strongly as I do).

The question about what progressives do keeps coming up in our group, thus the original question of how progressives (and progressive churches) handle the vows.

The question is more for the sake of group research than for myself personally. I already feel a leading on the matter (which does not include the denomination). I fully expect that the remainder of our group will in the end not share in the same. I fully expect to be resigning from leadership at any moment. Honestly, I'm surprised the dialog and my role has gone on as long as it has now (several months). I'm led to keep sharing my voice until my integrity is put on the line while not causing infighting, so that is what I am presently doing. If infighting begins or my integrity is put at stake then I know I am finished.

Prayers are appreciated.

do you care to share which of the 28 fundies you have issues with?

 

[M-Class]

do you care to share which of the 28 fundies you have issues with?

Ones I completely disagree with:
The Investigative Judgment, the denomination being the Remnant, and Ellen White as a prophet.

I'm also beginning to question and study aspects of others.

 

[StormyOne]

Ones I completely disagree with:
The Investigative Judgment, the denomination being the Remnant, and Ellen White as a prophet.

I'm also beginning to question and study aspects of others.

Yes I understand... those are usually the starting points.... I always questioned how a group could call itself the remnant based on a faulty application of scripture.... Then to suggest that something was happening in heaven when no one was actually there to see it, and coming to that conclusion only after being embarrassed because of date setting gone wrong...

 

[M-Class]

Blessings, M-Class.

If your church plant will be structured around "making better Adventists" then I can understand why you would want to leave. But that's not the only model for a Christian fellowship -- even an Adventist one. Perhaps the group might be willing to countenance a different mission: supporting members' development and discipling.
And none of that need have anything to do with your own convictions or what you choose to identify as.

Blessings as you walk your own path too.

We're presently structured around reaching the community and reaching displaced Adventists (those who feel they don't fit in elsewhere).

 

[M-Class]

Yes I understand... those are usually the starting points.... I always questioned how a group could call itself the remnant based on a faulty application of scripture.... Then to suggest that something was happening in heaven when no one was actually there to see it, and coming to that conclusion only after being embarrassed because of date setting gone wrong...

For me, the process actually began when someone expressed that our denomination's specific structure was divinely inspired. That didn't sound right to me which led me to jump into researching the political history. Somehow (I can't remember now) I wound up on the GC site reading the Veltman report on EGW plagiarism. I knew I didn't have the time or resources to address that one properly (without taking someone else's word for it), so I instead decided to investigate if her writings were consistant with the Bible (and her own words, and common sense). I ended up discarding EGW and began pursuing our doctrines. The Remnant connection fell fast. The IJ was not far behind.

By background, I used to hold to the traditional teachings, but was really more "moderate" in reality. The fact is that I, like most Adventists I know, didn't really fully understand the teachings and their implications. I sort-of picked and chose from EGW like a buffet. I assumed her contradictions were from letters or were out of context, but her visions were infallible (but I never actually looked into it... others said it and it was good enough for me). What seemed strange was just meant for her day. Actually studying things changed my outlook entierly.

 

[Sophia7]

Ones I completely disagree with:
The Investigative Judgment, the denomination being the Remnant, and Ellen White as a prophet.

I'm also beginning to question and study aspects of others.

Yes I understand... those are usually the starting points.... I always questioned how a group could call itself the remnant based on a faulty application of scripture.... Then to suggest that something was happening in heaven when no one was actually there to see it, and coming to that conclusion only after being embarrassed because of date setting gone wrong...

The IJ was the starting point for me, and once that foundation crumbled, many other Adventist doctrinal pillars were on shaky footing as well, including EGW's status as a prophet and the remnant concept.

 

[Sophia7]

For me, the process actually began when someone expressed that our denomination's specific structure was divinely inspired. That didn't sound right to me which led me to jump into researching the political history. Somehow (I can't remember now) I wound up on the GC site reading the Veltman report on EGW plagiarism. I knew I didn't have the time or resources to address that one properly (without taking someone else's word for it), so I instead decided to investigate if her writings were consistant with the Bible (and her own words, and common sense). I ended up discarding EGW and began pursuing our doctrines. The Remnant connection fell fast. The IJ was not far behind.

I also researched Adventist history (and non-Adventist history) and compared EGW's writings to the Bible and found her wanting.

By background, I used to hold to the traditional teachings, but was really more "moderate" in reality. The fact is that I, like most Adventists I know, didn't really fully understand the teachings and their implications. I sort-of picked and chose from EGW like a buffet. I assumed her contradictions were from letters or were out of context, but her visions were infallible (but I never actually looked into it... others said it and it was good enough for me). What seemed strange was just meant for her day. Actually studying things changed my outlook entierly.

It's pretty common, even among those who consider themselves traditional Adventists, to pick and choose from her writings. Not many Adventists that I know follow all of her dietary counsels or all of her instructions for Sabbath-keeping, for example. Most of the time, I just ignored what I didn't agree with in her writings. However, I finally came to the point where I couldn't keep trying to explain away her contradictions to the Bible and to history and even to herself by using the standard excuses about taking all of her writings in context and considering the time period in which she lived. She was wrong about so many things that I could no longer consider her inspired. And she herself warned people against the pick-and-choose approach to her writings.