The question here placed is whether EW should be criterion for baptism?
I would also like to ask; whether the church should be criterion for baptism?

quote:

---

Dave asked: I still wonder; why would anyone want to be an Adventist if they think the leaders and majority of the church are wrong?

---

As Dave’s question indicates, it is very clear that this question is really dealing with what we want others to think of us. So the issue in question is; should baptism rotate around the church and church’s doctrines? Is baptism a baptism of doctrines? The reality of that thought is that they should be baptized into the teaching of EW as interpreted and approved by the church. So in reality it means that they should place their faith in the authority of the church. Now this should remind us of something.

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? … For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Baptism is baptism of repentance and baptism unto Christ; so then it is repentance from what one is, and baptism of faith into what Christ is.

Faith if it is going to be the faith of Christ, must be just that and nothing less. Anything other than Christ is less – including the church, including EW. This does not mean that one regards the church or EW as liars. But rather recognizes that we know in part and see in part, and so our faith and basis must not rest in our understanding, but in the living Christ who is Savior and is complete.

I imagine none will contend here that in the judgment day: to have believed what the church believed, will hold water, regardless of how much one believed that it was true. Baptism should stand on that and only on that which stands in the judgment day.

So the church should humble itself to minister the gospel of faith of Christ, and not to think more highly of itself than it ought, and so require faith in itself. To say that they should go somewhere else only shows that we are not satisfied to be associated with the living Savior only, but rather want to take his glory away to ourselves and our doctrines.

John B

Great post. When Jesus is all in all, is there then man or woman, free or slave, SDA or catholic?

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

/Thomas

John you almost have me convinced. Maybe what we need is Baptism being separate from church membership. In other words anyone who believes in, and is a follower of Jesus could/should be born of the water. Now if they further wish to be a member of the SDA church they would need to make a statement (oath) saying they believe the 27 fundamental beliefs. Until they take that oath (that is not really the word I want) they could call themselves Christian but not SDA Christian.

Redfog

I can see the GC mess that would create allready.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of separating Baptism and church membership, of course it will never happen because, as Dave says, it would create a mess at the GC

Redfog

I don't see how they could be separated. When we are baptized, it is with an understanding that we accept the whole Bible (of which the SOP is a part of) and become members of this Remnant Church that God set up. God gave us the name of Seventh-day Adventist.

It doesn't matter if there is corruption in the church--it is in all the churches because the wheat grow with the tares.

I think the mess this would cause would extend much farther than the GC. We would have tiers of Christians in our churches. Some would be baptised and be Seventh-day Adventists, eligible to hold office and everything that membership involves. Some would be baptised but be - what? and excluded from a say in anything. Harmony? We have a hard enough time holding things together now when we are all fairly much on the same page. Amos 3:3 - Can two walk together unless they be agreed? This idea has been talked about quite a bit over the years, but was never decided on as a right course of action.

I think many of us have overlooked some of John's points: most seemed to have focused on the rite of baptism, church/SOP allegiance (I wish they were the same thing!), procedures and processes for accepting memberships. Inclusion within the organization alone is not all that it's cracked up to be, even if one swears loyalty on a stack of Church Manuals and memorizes the 28(now?) Fundies, neither of which existed in Pioneer days.

I wonder if the point is that being correctly exposed to the True Gospel will produce through the Holy Spirit the yearning for rebirth. This is not the 'gospel' the fallen churches preach; we must get over that myth.

If we have the True Gospel (which is not merely the "State of the dead, Prophecy in Daniel, Jesus Second Coming, the Sabbath, 6 day Creation") of salvation from Sin, not in sin, then we have something to offer much more than mere organizational membership, but membership into the Royal Family of God.

Salvation cannot be dispensed by any church organization, no matter how much of Present Truth is housed within it's walls. But the Remnant Church can, if in earnest, live and promote Him Who saved each individual within it, and let Him save the fallen.

Baptism should be a proof that He has done that, not a badge of joining alone.

It's not God's will to baptize people, separate from church membership.

"And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47

"By hearing the message of truth, men and women are led to accept the Sabbath and to unite with the church by baptism."
{8T 195.4}

Why would anyone who knows this truth want to be baptized in any other way?

As for there being discrepancies in EGW's writings: there aren't any. There might be apparent discrepancies in her writings, just as there are apparent discrepancies in the Bible. But in actuality there are none. Writing about the Bible, Mrs. White said,

"Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony."
{GC vi.1}

Since the SOP was inspired by the very same Holy Spirit Who inspired the Bible writers, we can expect the same to hold true for EGW's writings as well.

The Bible says that God's last-days remnant church will have the gift of prophecy manifested within it. Revelation 12:17, 19:10, 22:9. It also says that we should "despise not prophesyings." 1 Thess. 5:20.

So in accepting Ellen White's ministry, we are doing nothing more nor less than what the Bible tells us to do. If we reject her, we reject light from heaven; indeed we reject the Lord Himself. Speaking to another of His prophets, Samuel, God said,

"...they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them." 1 Samuel 8:7.

What if people had been baptized of John the Baptist, yet refused to acknowledge him as God's messenger? Would the Lord Jesus have commended such a course of action?

John Howard also makes some excellant points, especially the "apparent contradictions" quote. This must be applied to all doctrines in question, not merely baptism, the essentialness of understanding the station of the SOP, or church membership.

We must stop making "zombies" by burying in water "live persons" just to make more members in the church. We must understand and teach what being "buried in Christ's death" actually means.

I think the context of John H.'s quote bears me out:


Are you learning daily in the school of Christ--learning how to dismiss doubt and evil surmisings, learning how to be fair and noble in your dealings with your brethren, for your own sake, and for Christ's sake?
Present truth leads onward and upward, gathering in the needy, the oppressed, the suffering, the destitute. All that will come are to be brought into the fold. In their lives there is to take place a reformation that will constitute them members of the royal family, children of the heavenly King. By hearing the message of truth, men and women are led to accept the Sabbath and to unite with the church by baptism. They are to bear God's sign by observing the Sabbath of creation. They are to know for themselves that obedience to God's commandments means eternal life. {8T 195.4}

One cannot "dismiss doubt and evil surmisings, learning how to be fair and noble in your dealings with your brethren, for your own sake, and for Christ's sake" simply by joining the church, but by being given a new heart FIRST. Everything else will follow.

No EGW rejectors or doubters should be even interested in joining us, IF we have preached and lovingly taught the True Gospel, which is the Three Angel's Messages in fact.

If we have done our 1st job, been reborn ourselves, this problem would not arise. Ya can't give whatcha ain't got.