How do Progressive Adventists handle the baptismal vows?

[M-Class]

Less than a year ago I actually said "progressive Adventists scare me". The fact is, I simply did not understand the progressive movement and was happy to be in my little box assuming that I had the truth and there was no reason to look at error.

Long story short, the Holy Spirit has been working on me and has led me into a lot of study. I now consider myself to be a "newbie progressive". Today I side with the progressive on some points:

1. The denomination isn't the remnant. The remnant is a group of people with certain attributes.

2. Ellen White was an author who inspired many in her day, but she was not a prophet.

3. The Investigative Judgment may not be the correct interpretation of the sanctuary message.

I understand that "progressive" covers a lot of ground and each member here may or may not agree with one or all of these points. I do not wish to debate these points with those who do not hold them. Instead, I would like to ask a simple question for progressives that may hold these views...

How do you handle the baptismal vows?

As best as I can tell, the current church manual has two options for baptizing members. The long vows specifically list things contrary to these progressive views. The short vows contain acceptance of the 28 fundamentals and therefore also are contrary to these progressive views.

I'm in an area where progressive churches are unheard of, so I can't just attend one and ask. I am confused on this because I understand that there are thousands who call themselves "progressive Adventist" and are members of the denomination while holding views such as mine. So, theoretically anyway, there should be room for myself within the denomination as well (effect positive change from within instead of heading the offshoot route).

At the same time, I don't understand how I can bring others into the church and have them vow to something I don't even believe in so that they can be baptized.

Once again, how do progressives handle this topic?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Less than a year ago I actually said "progressive Adventists scare me". The fact is, I simply did not understand the progressive movement and was happy to be in my little box assuming that I had the truth and there was no reason to look at error.

Thanks for sharing this. I used to have this same perspective. Sometimes the very ideas that I've resisted have been the same ones that the Holy Spirit was challenging me to consider. It sounds as though you've had a similar experience.

Long story short, the Holy Spirit has been working on me and has led me into a lot of study. I now consider myself to be a "newbie progressive".

Although I am no longer an SDA, I welcome you to this forum and to the new ideas you're exploring!

Today I side with the progressive on some points:

1. The denomination isn't the remnant. The remnant is a group of people with certain attributes.

The remnant is described in Romans 11. The best I can tell, it isn't Gentiles.

2. Ellen White was an author who inspired many in her day, but she was not a prophet.

That's how I view it.

3. The Investigative Judgment may not be the correct interpretation of the sanctuary message.

After carefully reading the book of Hebrews, I was convinced.

I understand that "progressive" covers a lot of ground and each member here may or may not agree with one or all of these points.

From my limited experience, most do.

I do not wish to debate these points with those who do not hold them.

Fair enough . . . .

How do you handle the baptismal vows?

As best as I can tell, the current church manual has two options for baptizing members. The long vows specifically list things contrary to these progressive views. The short vows contain acceptance of the 28 fundamentals and therefore also are contrary to these progressive views.

I'm in an area where progressive churches are unheard of, so I can't just attend one and ask. I am confused on this because I understand that there are thousands who call themselves "progressive Adventist" and are members of the denomination while holding views such as mine. So, theoretically anyway, there should be room for myself within the denomination as well (effect positive change from within instead of heading the offshoot route).

At the same time, I don't understand how I can bring others into the church and have them vow to something I don't even believe in so that they can be baptized.

Once again, how do progressives handle this topic?

This is a tricky question. I cannot answer on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, I will express my concern that some have attached the concept of "baptism" with "church membership" and/or "believing a specific list of doctrines." I see no Biblical basis for connecting these ideas.

BFA

 

[M-Class]

This is a tricky question. I cannot answer on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. However, I will express my concern that some have attached the concept of "baptism" with "church membership" and/or "believing a specific list of doctrines." I see no Biblical basis for connecting these ideas.

BFA

I agree. I can find no Biblical basis for it either. In addition to the above doctrinal issues, I disagree with enforcing the giving up of things (jewlery, smoking, drinking, etc. for example) prior to baptism. I choose not to do any of those things myself, but I also know that they aren't salvation issues and it is not my responsibility to enforce them on others as a condition of baptism. As I see it, if it is necessary for someone to give those things up then it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict them on those issues. Sure, I should (and do) live my life so as to be a good example as I have personally been convicted to do. However, it is my opinion that making others agree to "the club rules" prior to baptism is essentially asking the newcomer to make changes in their lives on their own... not necessarily by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Baptism should mean that they are ready to begin a new life listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit, not that they "have arrived" at some standard without the Holy Spirit. It is the beginning, not the end.

In Acts the issue of circumcision came up after they were baptized, not prior to baptism.

Anyway, while your comment made me think some more about the issue, I would still like to know how progressive churches handle baptism.

While I would love to remain an Adventist doing my part to improve things from within, it seems that the denomination rules make it technically impossible to do so. I may very well wind up leaving the denomination over the issue. Yet, I know progressives exist and are members (just not around here in the highly conservative southeast), so I figured there must be some way that it happens... I just can't figure out how. So... I thought I'd ask.

 

[Kira Light]

I think leaving the church does far more to make other SDA's question their beliefs than staying in and acting like its all okay. It sounds like you are on the path to leaving already. I say get it over with. You will feel better

 

[VictorC]

While I would love to remain an Adventist doing my part to improve things from within, it seems that the denomination rules make it technically impossible to do so.

I suggest embarking on a quest for integrity, and that will define the path set before you.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I agree. I can find no Biblical basis for it either. In addition to the above doctrinal issues, I disagree with enforcing the giving up of things (jewlery, smoking, drinking, etc. for example) prior to baptism.

I agree wholeheartedly. Baptism is for sinners, not the already victorious.

I choose not to do any of those things myself, but I also know that they aren't salvation issues and it is not my responsibility to enforce them on others as a condition of baptism.

I hear you. Although these aren't my sins of choice either, I am fully aware of the many ways that I sin daily.

As I see it, if it is necessary for someone to give those things up then it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict them on those issues. Sure, I should (and do) live my life so as to be a good example as I have personally been convicted to do. However, it is my opinion that making others agree to "the club rules" prior to baptism is essentially asking the newcomer to make changes in their lives on their own... not necessarily by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Baptism should mean that they are ready to begin a new life listening to the leading of the Holy Spirit, not that they "have arrived" at some standard without the Holy Spirit. It is the beginning, not the end.

I agree.

While I would love to remain an Adventist doing my part to improve things from within, it seems that the denomination rules make it technically impossible to do so. I may very well wind up leaving the denomination over the issue.

Wherever you land, I am confident that God will guide. My wife and I had small children and our decision was heavily influenced by our desire to teach our children about salvation by grace through faith and not by works. I would not suggest that my decision was the right decision for every individual. May God bless as you and me as we continue to grow in our understanding of Him.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

It is interesting, when my teenaged daughter was baptized they never asked any vow. In fact when I am present at most baptisms there is no vow given so I don't know if it is given in private or not given at all. There is no vow needed to join the church as it is simply voted on by the congregation.

It is fairly silly to require a vow to a church as most people actually do change their religious views over time and as a church we believe in progressive revelation which could be discovering new things.

So personally unless you have a pastor trying to get you to say something you don't believe in I would not worry about it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

as a church we believe in progressive revelation which could be discovering new things.

As I understand it, SDAism believes in progressive revelation that does not negate any of the previously established beliefs.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

As I understand it, SDAism believes in progressive revelation that does not negate any of the previously established beliefs.

BFA

That would be what the traditional SDA's believe no doubt. But to hold such a view negates the whole idea of progressive revelation.

Michael W. Campbell’s just-completed study, "The 1919 Bible Conference and Its Significance for Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology," offers this gripping observation at the end of the third chapter:

Finally, several speakers, most notably W. W. Prescott, emphasized the importance of progressive revelation. Truth is progressive and Adventists needed a Bible Conference to continue to mine the depths of God’s word, they argued. Adventist thinkers were feeling the pressure of a number of doctrinal conflicts that made it advantageous to discuss theological issues candidly yet behind closed doors. The 1919 Bible Conference was ultimately an opportunity for leading thinkers in the church to seek both theological unity and spiritual revival.2

Patrick--Campbell on 1919 Conf




​

Doctrinal conflicts cannot be settled with the attitude that whatever we have believed cannot be changed or that progressive revelation is not possible. But you are entirely correct if you are describing traditional Adventism such as this from the traditionalist publication:

Seventh-day Adventist Doctrines and Progressive Revelation


© P. Gerard Damsteegt

Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 2/1 (1991): 77-92.

Progressive revelation has played an important role in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist church and its theology. By "progressive revelation" I mean God's continuous unfolding of prior revealed truth.1 Without such progressive revelation, the unfolding of inspired truth building on truth previously revealed and never denying it, the Seventh-day Adventist Church would not exist. ©Damsteegt: SDA Doctrine & Progressive Revelation

And that is underlying difference between Progressive Adventism and Traditional Adventism.

 

[BigRedBus]

How do Progressive Adventists handle the baptismal vows?
That’s something I’ve often wondered too… I was planning to start a thread on this but you got here first

It does feel to me as though the ceremony of baptism gets tangled up with the process of accepting new members – indeed the two things are often performed in such close succession that you can’t readily tell when one has ended and another has begun. I am sure most born-and-raised SDAs haven’t even realised there’s a distinction between the two.

I think that asking people to make vows detracts from the simple symbolism of a baptism. All a person should need to state is that they are doing this of their own free will, that they have accepted Jesus as their own personal saviour, and that they understand what a baptism symbolises.

I think that the church has no business to force people to make promises under these circumstances. It’s interfering, manipulative, heavy handed and unnecessary. The “long version” vows are often irrelevant, and often unenforceable too.

I feel I have changed my outlook since baptism. My thinking has broadened and I have moved on spiritually. Anything I “promised” at baptism was only a general statement of intention at that time, and I don’t feel bound by it now. Neither should you.

I choose to remain in the church because it suits me to do so, and because there’s a lot of good in there. The problem is with the culture much more than with the people.

 

[ricker]

How do Progressive Adventists handle the baptismal vows?
That’s something I’ve often wondered too… I was planning to start a thread on this but you got here first

It does feel to me as though the ceremony of baptism gets tangled up with the process of accepting new members – indeed the two things are often performed in such close succession that you can’t readily tell when one has ended and another has begun. I am sure most born-and-raised SDAs haven’t even realised there’s a distinction between the two.

I think that asking people to make vows detracts from the simple symbolism of a baptism. All a person should need to state is that they are doing this of their own free will, that they have accepted Jesus as their own personal saviour, and that they understand what a baptism symbolises.

I think that the church has no business to force people to make promises under these circumstances. It’s interfering, manipulative, heavy handed and unnecessary. The “long version” vows are often irrelevant, and often unenforceable too.

I feel I have changed my outlook since baptism. My thinking has broadened and I have moved on spiritually. Anything I “promised” at baptism was only a general statement of intention at that time, and I don’t feel bound by it now. Neither should you.

I choose to remain in the church because it suits me to do so, and because there’s a lot of good in there. The problem is with the culture much more than with the people.

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.....

 

[Sophia7]

It is interesting, when my teenaged daughter was baptized they never asked any vow. In fact when I am present at most baptisms there is no vow given so I don't know if it is given in private or not given at all. There is no vow needed to join the church as it is simply voted on by the congregation.

It is fairly silly to require a vow to a church as most people actually do change their religious views over time and as a church we believe in progressive revelation which could be discovering new things.

So personally unless you have a pastor trying to get you to say something you don't believe in I would not worry about it.

I wasn't asked to affirm any vows before my baptism either. The fundamental beliefs at the time (I was 10) were listed on the back of my baptismal certificate, but I wasn't required to affirm them. The pastor who baptized me asked me only two questions: "Do you love Jesus?" and "Are you looking forward to His second coming?"

I noticed recently that the Adventist Church has a list of fundamental beliefs for children, which is recommended for preparing them for baptism. I don't know how many pastors actually use it, but I hope not many. It even tries to explain the IJ in a simplified fashion. I'm glad that I've never had to teach my kids about the IJ; even if it were true, kids certainly wouldn't need to know it in order to be ready for baptism. And even most Adventist adults that I know don't understand the IJ.

Even though many Adventist pastors don't require affirmation of the 28 FBs or the official baptismal vows, though, and even though I never had to affirm them, I came to the point where I didn't believe that it would be right for me to consider myself an Adventist if I couldn't uphold those beliefs. I suppose my decision was complicated by my husband's position as a pastor since more was expected of us than of most lay members, especially since we were in very traditional Adventist churches. We could have gone to a more progressive Adventist church--in fact, we still visit one occasionally because hubby's grandma is a member there--and not been burdened by so many expectations, but I don't feel completely comfortable there either because of my disagreements with Adventist doctrine.

 

[Sophia7]

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.....

I can't remember if I ever signed mine. If I did, it was later, after my baptism, because I wasn't asked to affirm or sign anything beforehand. Now I'm curious. I guess I'll have to look for my certificate.

 

[tall73]

As a pastor we went through the vows with every candidate. With adults we did so right up front before the baptism. With young kids we used the simplified version and did it more privately.

But some of the pastors I talked to in more progressive churches did not use the vows at all.

For my part once I could no longer accept the Investigative Judgment I did not think it was right to stay. So we found a church that does not spell out everything you have to believe so that we could study things out.

I think I signed a certificate. But I was actually baptized a short while before they voted the then 27 fundamentals.

Larger population centers tend to have more progressive churches, or at least options between progressive and conservative. It sounds like you are likely not in a larger area, or in one without options. That does put you in a tight spot because then you cannot engage fully in the evangelistic efforts of the church as you mentioned.

And even if they did not require baptismal vows you would be bringing them into a church that still trends toward legalistic requirements in diet, behavior, etc. and majors in the minors.

I think a lot of those who become progressive in conservative settings do so later after having further time to digest the material. Then they either move to a progressive church, quit going to any church (please don't do that) or leave the Adventist church and go to a different church.

Or some just stay and disagree with things often! I saw a few of those.

 

[tall73]

So, theoretically anyway, there should be room for myself within the denomination as well (effect positive change from within instead of heading the offshoot route).

I know of several pastors who I went to school with that do not accept the IJ either. They stay hoping to make a change. And over time I suppose if enough churches do not teach something it loses emphasis. But the difference in the Adventist church is Ellen White. People may not emphasize things as much but her writings are still there and they still direct people to them. And they still view her as a source of truth. Therefore though many in the church are embarrassed to even bring up the IJ, the church cannot discard it without getting rid of EGW as well, which they will not do.

Here is an interesting quote on the de-emphasis of the doctrine:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.


M. L. Andreason letter, 1942

 

[Laodicean]

I know of several pastors who I went to school with that do not accept the IJ either. They stay hoping to make a change. And over time I suppose if enough churches do not teach something it loses emphasis. But the difference in the Adventist church is Ellen White. People may not emphasize things as much but her writings are still there and they still direct people to them. And they still view her as a source of truth. Therefore though many in the church are embarrassed to even bring up the IJ, the church cannot discard it without getting rid of EGW as well, which they will not do.

Here is an interesting quote on the de-emphasis of the doctrine:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.


M. L. Andreason letter, 1942

Tall, I am sure you have good reasons for rejecting the concept of the investigative judgment. I myself have what I think are good reasons for accepting the concept, but it may be because I interpret the concept somewhat differently from the traditional view -- if the view even still exists.

If you don't mind sharing, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you think the concept is an untenable one. I'm always open to checking and rechecking my ideas in hopes of arriving at clearer understandings of truth.

Please know that I'm not looking for a debate, especially with a mind as erudite as yours, so don't be surprsed if I respond to your explanation with only further questions and eventually with silence as I think through what you have to offer.

Thanks.

 

[BigRedBus]

... we found a church that does not spell out everything you have to believe so that we could study things out.

I credit people with enough brains to make up their own mind about what to believe and I am convinced the church wouldn't fall apart if members were permitted to think more for themselves -- it might even find it does better. I think there are limits to what a church ought to prescribe. Some things simply have to be "givens" or you don't have any framework, but I don't think there need to be many of them.

I think a lot of those who become progressive in conservative settings do so later after having further time to digest the material.

That describes my journey -- but in my case I started off liberal and got even more so.

Or some just stay and disagree with things often! I saw a few of those.

That's what I do. It suits me to stay put and I have no problem with challenging SDA orthodoxy, particularly when I see inconsistency, bossiness or pettiness.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I am sure you have good reasons for rejecting the concept of the investigative judgment. I myself have what I think are good reasons for accepting the concept, but it may be because I interpret the concept somewhat differently from the traditional view -- if the view even still exists.

If you don't mind sharing, I would be interested to hear your reasons why you think the concept is an untenable one. I'm always open to checking and rechecking my ideas in hopes of arriving at clearer understandings of truth.

Please know that I'm not looking for a debate, especially with a mind as erudite as yours, so don't be surprsed if I respond to your explanation with only further questions and eventually with silence as I think through what you have to offer.

Thanks.

There have been a few threads on the issue. This one was posted some time ago but recently became active again. It has gone over a number of issues, so you may already see some of your questions asked:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7410772/



There were a number of discussions on the old CARM boards as well with Adventist pastors and lay people and some of us formers. They got into even more detail on some aspects. If you are interested pm me and I will see if I can dig them up.


If you just want my take on things without reading a lot of discussion on it you can check my website:

sanctuarydoctrine.com

 

[Laodicean]

There have been a few threads on the issue. This one was posted some time ago but recently became active again. It has gone over a number of issues, so you may already see some of your questions asked:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7410772/



There were a number of discussions on the old CARM boards as well with Adventist pastors and lay people and some of us formers. They got into even more detail on some aspects. If you are interested pm me and I will see if I can dig them up.


If you just want my take on things without reading a lot of discussion on it you can check my website:

sanctuarydoctrine.com

okay, Tall, I'll read your links. I guess any questions or comments I may have I'll make over on the theology forum, to keep from diverting this thread further.

 

[M-Class]

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.