>>...their neighbor...<<

...and there are those who believe everyone is their neighbour: and there are those who believe 'neighbour' is Jesus Christ-defined in the NT...

Holy Writ leads many directions. Perhaps, that is

as it should be.

Take practically any dogma and it, seemingly, blows in the wind. Say, isn't the HS referred to, euphemistically,

as 'wind'?

Quote:

The way you join the Body of Christ is through baptism.

The way you join the church is through a vote. And that would be anything greater than 50% of those present at a particualar time .

I think you are simplifying that too much, Redwood.

God accepts those who fully follow Him to the extent of their understanding of the truth. There are very sincere Christians who love the Lord, and to their best knowledge follow Him. The purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to bring to their knowledge a fuller understanding of the full truth -- as far as God has given it to us. Those who have died loving Jesus, but not having had the full truth pointed out to them, will be saved -- but "he that knoweth to do good and doeth it not" to him it is sin.

God's purpose in raising the Seventh-day Adventist Church was to bring to the world (including other Christians) a fuller knowledge of His truth -- including the Sabbath, the Health message, and the nearness of the Second Coming. This is our task, and this is why we have the 28 fundamentals spelt out clearly, so that we know all that we believe.

Beryl

I believe Adventist pastors should be able to bapatize someone into the greater body of Christ. That is simply that the baptized person becomes a baptized Christian.

Why should someone put off baptism until he/she has studied out the 28 fundamental Adventist beliefs. If a person knows that he/she loves God and wants to follow Him, shouldn't he/she be allowed to be baptized then, as the Ethiopian was in Acts 8? He hadn't accepted all 28 when Philip baptized him.

Then after further study a person could be accepted into the Adventist church, just as many other Christians join our church by "confession of faith".

I do know of SDA pastors who baptize people into the body of Christ and not as members of the SDA church. They don't advertise the fact, but nevertheless, it IS done.

IMHO, that's the way it should be done. Baptism is a public acknowledgment of one's commitment to Christ.

Membership in a church comes later, by the new member's petition and the church's acceptance of that member by vote.

Well said. And in fact technically ... this IS the only way that it is done with all baptisms. It is just that some SDA pastors combine it rather closely. Biblically ... if you have faith in Jesus that He died for your sins and accept Him as your saviour then you should be baptized. You would later discover all the Bible truths including the 28 Fundamentals.

But usually we put the cart before the horse and require them to have knowledge and acceptance of all the 28 before baptism is authorized. But either way ... when one is baptized ... he is baptized into the body of Christ at large. He is not baptized into any church. No Pastor is allowed to baptize anyone INTO a CHURCH. The only way you can be a member of any church ... is by the 50% vote of the members present. This happens subject to or after baptism.

But you are right ... membership can or should be able to just happen anytime after you are baptized . It could be years later through profession of faith. And I would go one step further .... I would say you could just have ANYONE baptize you. The Bible does not specify that it has to be a Pastor. Then that way ... you would not be pressured to accept the 28 Fundamentals until you had time to fully study and were ready.

I personally don't believe we should be withholding baptism from anyone who has accepted Christ as their Saviour. We withhold it from those who smoke or drink coffee etc. But those are issues of growth that we all have issues with. They will come with time. The Holy Spirit's time not ours. And they should not be reason to withhold the water.

I would add homosexuality to the above list also ... but that might envoke controversy. And I shy away from controversy.