Is a SDA Baptism Authentic?

Unfortunately the Bible doesn't say whether SDA baptism is authentic. Maybe the best thing would be to find out why SDA's baptize, and whether they only baptize believers (and what they say it means to be a believer), and how they baptize, and whether you have to be wearing a coat and tie when you get baptized. Well, maybe not that last one. But if all of the other answers line up with our answers then I see no reason why we shouldn't accept their baptism. But I am thinking about going to see "End of the Spear" so I may be too liberal for you to believe anyway.

 

I'm pretty sure that SDA's practice full immersion believers baptism.
I have my doubts about some SDA theology (especially the stuff that masquerades as history), but their baptismal practices seem solid.

 

If a believer is sprinkled, poured or immersed with water in the triune name of God THEY ARE BAPTIZED period. It doesn't make any difference if a Catholic priest, Baptist minister or an Adventist minister baptizes you. As long as you believe and repent of your sins and acknowledge Jesus as your personal Savior, the baptism is valid.

 

my friends....I believe there are three scritural things which makes a baptism legitiment.

1. Proper canidate (born again, saved person)

2. proper mode....if one trulys wishes to know the bibical way.....just do a search of theway it was done in scriptures......I don't believe you will find one instance of sprinking nor pouring.

3. And proper authority..... I personally believe when Christ gave (the great commission) Matt.18:28, He gave it to His local visiable assembly (The church).... Therefore we must ask ourselves is the church truly adhearing to scriptures only or has doctrines made of man , not God? If they are not using God's word as their complete rule of faith in practice, then they are not allowed to administer baptism.

 

I started a response but read yours and decided a hearty AMEN was more appropriate.

 

Ron, I don't think there is any way to misunderstand this. But since this is an unusual position for a Baptist, would you clarify whether you did also mean sprinkling and pouring are valid modes of baptism? Thanks.

 

I believe that it is the condition of the heart of the candidate that matters more than the heart of the baptizer. And I am concerned about the condition of the heart of a Baptist pastor of a church in northern Finland who would crack the ice in their baptism tank in the middle of January and immerse a very frail 95 year old woman! Jesus did not live in a cold climate, and I believe that He would expect his followers to use at least a little common sense.

I suppose that you are aware that most churches in cold climates quit immersing people when they discovered that 97% of them were dying of pneumonia, and the other 3% died on the spot of heart failure!

 

Craigbythesea..... your reply is a little off the subject this thread is about...

but yes I agree, common sense must be considered when baptisms is preformed. But it has been my experience that most churchs in our day and time have indoor baptisteries.

 

When I spoke of the condition of the heart, I was including SDA pastors and those baptized by them.

The second part of my post was a response to some others who have posted in this thread.

 

The truth of the matter is. is that there are two outstanding cases where people were most likely baptized by water that was poured lightly over their head, rather than being immersed in a large body of water, such as a river.

This would be the case of Paul being baptized by Ananias , where Paul was residing. Ananias most likely took water from a large urn and pour it over Paul when he baptized him.Acts 22:16 Notice nothing is said about Paul being taken down to a river for full immersion.He is told to arise or raise up and be baptized by Ananias. If Paul would have been immersed by Ananias it would say he and Paul went down INTO the water together and not telling Paul to raise up or stand to be baptized.

Also in Acts 16 the jailer and his whole household were baptized at night and this was at the jailer's residence or home where Paul had just finished explaining the word of God more fully to them.Acts 16:32

 

It's called a swimmingpool.
We hire one every time we want to baptise a person in our church.
Much saver than using the Rhine, or another local river you know.

 

(quote by ron Arndt)
(The truth of the matter is. is that there are two outstanding cases where people were most likely baptized by water that was poured lightly over their head, rather than being immersed in a large body of water, such as a river.

This would be the case of Paul being baptized by Ananias , where Paul was residing. Ananias most likely took water from a large urn and pour it over Paul when he baptized him.Acts 22:16 Notice nothing is said about Paul being taken down to a river for full immersion.He is told to arise or raise up and be baptized by Ananias. If Paul would have been immersed by Ananias it would say he and Paul went down INTO the water together and not telling Paul to raise up or stand to be baptized.

Also in Acts 16 the jailer and his whole household were baptized at night and this was at the jailer's residence or home where Paul had just finished explaining the word of God more fully to them.Acts 16:32)

Come on Ron.....We don't base our beliefs on ( or at least I don't) on suppositions.

All actual accounts given in scriptures showing the process of baptism, indicate that total emersion was used.

I have found that when we speculate on what might nor might not have occured, it leads to confussion and false teachings.

 

The point is, is that when Paul was with Ananias in his dwelling, Ananias told him to ARISE or rise up and be baptized.They were inside a dwelling when Paul was baptized. Paul was not immersed at a river when baptized at all. This is not a matter of supposition at all. The same can be said for the jailer and his household when Paul baptized the family IN THEIR HOUSE.Acts 16:32

 

Again Ron you are using your assuming power....it does not say that sprinkled nor poured for baptism.....nor does it say that they arose and went out to there was much water.

You are trying to use your assumption to prove a point. which neither proves your point nor mine. Because these scriptures are silent on how the baptism was administered.

I still will stick with Scriptures which describes the act of baptism.....such as Jesus's own baptism found in Matt. 3:13-17.....and the account given to us in Acts 8:28 -39 where the account of Philip and the eunuch is recoreded to base my belief upon..

Again I feel that to assume something which is not clear in Scriptures is a supposition

 

arkie pastor

Both Paul and the jailer's family were INSIDE a house when they were baptized. Unless there was a baptismal TANK inside the houses Paul and the jailer's family were baptized by water being poured over their heads. You have to have an great deal of water avaiable to immerse someone in baptism. Both Paul and the jailer's family were IN A HOUSE.Acts 16:32

 

arkie Pastor

Consider this historic document on the use of baptism taken from "the Didache" dated at about 80-100 A.D This document proves both immersion and POURING was used in the method of baptism. Please read the quote.

"Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, POUR OUT out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.(emphasis mine)

 

Ron Arndt

Well Ron lets take a look at 16:33-34...."And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And he brought THEM INTO HIS HOUSE, he sat meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house"

Well Ron true they were in his house in verse 32, But in verse 33 it seems to indicate that he brought them (posssiably back into) his house after baptism. Again it does not give any indication how Paul baptized them.

 

notice also the bringing into the house in verse 34 occured after the stripes were washed and the baptism.

 

Why do Paul's statements in I Cor. 1 seem to want to come to my mind, here?
In His grace,
Ed