Adventist Dedication

[HistoryTeacher]

I have 2nd cousin who was “dedicated” at her 7th Adventist Church awhile back. I didn’t attend cause Adventists are kinda. . .well. . .I just wasn’t comfortable(although my cousin did bring his family to my son’s catholic baptism). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what this “dedication” was all about. I don’t think they do infant baptism so is this just a “bring them into the church community” ceremony because they want something like we have for our children but they can’t baptize?

Brandon

 

[bengal_fan]

in a sense, they are playing baptism but without the water or the grace. it is an opportunity for the parents to dedicate their child to God and to promise to raise that child a Christian. there is no spiritual significance to it.

 

[ahimsaman72]

HistoryTeacher:

I have 2nd cousin who was “dedicated” at her 7th Adventist Church awhile back. I didn’t attend cause Adventists are kinda. . .well. . .I just wasn’t comfortable(although my cousin did bring his family to my son’s catholic baptism). Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what this “dedication” was all about. I don’t think they do infant baptism so is this just a “bring them into the church community” ceremony because they want something like we have for our children but they can’t baptize?

Brandon

Dedication of children is done by parents who want to publicly acknowledge their raising their child in the Christian faith. It’s not a baptism (which happens only when the person accepts Christ - called aptly, “believers baptism”.) It bestows no graces. It’s simply public acknowledgement of private devotion to God.

The pastor (in front of the congregation) asks the parents if they are committing to raising their children in a Christian home and teaching them Christian principles. The parents affirm their commitment out loud and usually a prayer follows. And, as in the case with my children (we are Baptists), the child is given a New Testament baby Bible with the child’s name and the date duly recorded inside. Usually, this is done during the first year of the child’s life, but can happen later too.

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

in a sense, they are playing baptism but without the water or the grace. it is an opportunity for the parents to dedicate their child to God and to promise to raise that child a Christian. there is no spiritual significance to it.

None of this is true. There’s no playing. This is a spiritual moment when devotion and commitment to God’s principles is publicly confessed. You can relate it to marriage vows. They are said publicly before others and before God (obviously). The same principle applies in the dedication of our children.

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

Dedication of children is done by parents who want to publicly acknowledge their raising their child in the Christian faith. It’s not a baptism (which happens only when the person accepts Christ - called aptly, “believers baptism”.) It bestows no graces. It’s simply public acknowledgement of private devotion to God.

too bad they could be getting baptized and receiving the grace that comes with that, but if you want to deny them that until they believe on their own (which has to be much tougher to do when they don’t have original sin already washed away and are therefore much more exposed to the attacks of the enemy) then have them wait. (i know, i’ve opened a huge can of worms and probably even dumped a bunch of them on the floor but oh well…i can back up my argument scripturally better than the “adult believer only” argument).

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

None of this is true. There’s no playing. This is a spiritual moment when devotion and commitment to God’s principles is publicly confessed. You can relate it to marriage vows. They are said publicly before others and before God (obviously). The same principle applies in the dedication of our children.

bad analogy as something deeply spiritual happens when a marriage takes place (the two become one), but you are saying that the “dedication” is symbolic. why not get the real thing and have them baptized? the same thing happens: you promise to raise them in a Christian home and teach them to obey God’s principles, but they also get to be joined with Christ at that moment.

 

[Malachi4U]

Just like children who play house or pretend like they go to work at thier parents job pay great honour to their parents, SDA’s pay great honour to Catholics. The SDA’s pay the honour to Baptism, a Scripture command, but without the Sacrement of it (for young people). This is good because why would you dedicate a child unless Scripture said to or commanded a Baptism (which you could not admit to of course as a SDA).

When theologies go astray so do the things they do. This is an example of an opinion on theology that strayed away from His Church but the members could not abandon Baptism totally for whatever reason. If Baptism were ‘symbolic’ only as (many)Baptists claim, why Baptize at all?

I have some of my best friends who are SDA’s. We have been friends for years and I am friends with some of their friends now as well. I have gone to SDA weddings and such but not an actual Sabboth day service (I honour and worship God on the Lords day, Sunday). They are very anti-Catholic and very vocal about it to, even more so then the Baptists. They believe the Catholic Church is the ‘whore of babylon’ and the Pope is the anti-Christ. They teach this from the pulpit to. Just watch the 3ABN TV network.

Do not fear going to a service of an apostate church like this. They are on the edge of Christion beliefs but I still believe them to be Christian (but even barely Christian is still Christian! ) If you go to one of their services just show your Faith and spread it to them. Do not participate even in the singing as some songs may contain herisey. If they say a prayer and it is not wrongfull or filled with herisey then pray with them and make the sign of the cross at the end. If the prayer is heritical then do not acknowledge it with the sign of our Lord. Do not partake of communion etc…

My best SDA friend died this year and now his soul is ‘sleeping’ while waiting for Jesus to come back to judge us (they don’t believe in ‘faith alone’ I guess?) When he died I told his wife, my wife’s best friend, that today he was no longer Jay, now he was Saint Jay. I doubt she understood my meaning that he was alive and with God the moment he died. (See, I do think all Christians are going to heaven)

If you think the topics on this forum like faith alone or the Pope’s infallibility are involved and difficult, just try talking ‘soul sleep’ with an SDA. Talk about a 2 sided topic. I admit, I see no proof at all in the faith alone opinion on the protestant side but ‘soul sleep’ causes you to realize that it is the Church that gives us true theology and not opinions.

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

bad analogy as something deeply spiritual happens when a marriage takes place (the two become one), but you are saying that the “dedication” is symbolic. why not get the real thing and have them baptized? the same thing happens: you promise to raise them in a Christian home and teach them to obey God’s principles, but they also get to be joined with Christ at that moment.

It was a great analogy. Do the bride and groom become fixed to each other’s side like siamese twins? No. Surely you aren’t saying that. So, then you would have to agree that the marriage covenant is a spiritual joining of man and wife in the sight of God. So, dedication is also a spiritual joining/covenant. Parents form a covenant with God before their fellow saints to raise their children in a Godly home with the blessing and support of their fellow brethren/saints.

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

too bad they could be getting baptized and receiving the grace that comes with that, but if you want to deny them that until they believe on their own (which has to be much tougher to do when they don’t have original sin already washed away and are therefore much more exposed to the attacks of the enemy) then have them wait. (i know, i’ve opened a huge can of worms and probably even dumped a bunch of them on the floor but oh well…i can back up my argument scripturally better than the “adult believer only” argument).

Since you are so confident in your “scripturally better” argument, why don’t you start a thread and expound upon for all of us so that we can be awestruck at your knowledge? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

It was a great analogy. Do the bride and groom become fixed to each other’s side like siamese twins? No. Surely you aren’t saying that. So, then you would have to agree that the marriage covenant is a spiritual joining of man and wife in the sight of God. So, dedication is also a spiritual joining/covenant. Parents form a covenant with God before their fellow saints to raise their children in a Godly home with the blessing and support of their fellow brethren/saints.

no, i am not attached at the side to my wife, but we are one flesh, and the way we become joined to God is through the death and resurrection of His Son through baptism, not a baby dedication. if the parents want to reaffirm their own faith and commitment…great, but don’t do it at the expense of the baby becoming one with God which happens when the grace is administered at baptism.

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

Since you are so confident in your “scripturally better” argument, why don’t you start a thread and expound upon for all of us so that we can be awestruck at your knowledge? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

there are already so many threads, tracts, and books dealing with this that it isn’t necessary (see, i’m smart enought not to waste my time on something that has already been done for me…i’m a genius ). and, just some info…most of the Christian world practices infant baptism. it always has since the beginning of the church. only a few denominations and non-denominational churches force people to wait.

 

[bengal_fan]

btw…i do like your website ahimsaman72

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

btw…i do like your website ahimsaman72

Thanks!! I am trying to offer a general site for Christian info, which of course includes Catholic, Orthodox and protestant resources. I’ll try not to show too much bias . I will be posting a document on baptism of children on it and put it on the “Topic of the Month” page, just in case you wanna come back.

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

there are already so many threads, tracts, and books dealing with this that it isn’t necessary (see, i’m smart enought not to waste my time on something that has already been done for me…i’m a genius ). and, just some info…most of the Christian world practices infant baptism. it always has since the beginning of the church. only a few denominations and non-denominational churches force people to wait.

You are right. Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists all practice infant baptism. Majority can’t always be right .

 

[boppysbud]

Ahimsaman, are you yourself a SDA?

I noticed links on your website to Discover bible studies, which is SDA, and to vegetarianism, which is SDA teaching.

 

[ahimsaman72]

boppysbud:

Ahimsaman, are you yourself a SDA?

I noticed links on your website to Discover bible studies, which is SDA, and to vegetarianism, which is SDA teaching.

No, friend. I’m Southern Baptist. Actually, I have an SDA friend back home that I spent hours talking to about religious issues. He and I used to get into some real arguments. I used to laugh at his vegetarian diet and other beliefs. Now, I’m a vegetarian!

As far as the Discover Bible studies, they are pretty accurate. Those studies and the It is Written website are pretty basic Christianity. They are very sincere and dedicated Christians and I respect them totally, although I don’t believe everything they do.

If you will notice, though, I have links to Catholic and orthodox sites as well. Truth is, we are all influenced by one another in some way.

You can learn more about me at the “about me” page.

Peace…

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

You are right. Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists all practice infant baptism. Majority can’t always be right .

but it seems that in Christianity…the majority has been right everytime (when you take all of Christendom). every coucil that has approved or disapproved something has been right. if you take every professing (not including mormons) Christian in the world…the majority will be right. you also forgot that most presbyterians practice infant baptism and that every one of the reformers did also except for the anabaptists who were and are widely regarded as “out there” theologically.

 

[ahimsaman72]

bengal_fan:

but it seems that in Christianity…the majority has been right everytime (when you take all of Christendom). every coucil that has approved or disapproved something has been right. if you take every professing (not including mormons) Christian in the world…the majority will be right. you also forgot that most presbyterians practice infant baptism and that every one of the reformers did also except for the anabaptists who were and are widely regarded as “out there” theologically.

I wasn’t sure about Presbyterians, but I suppose that makes sense.

If I were to take a poll of all Christians and asked them how many wise men came to give gifts to Jesus, 75% would say three. However, there is no indication of how many wise men actually gave the gifts. So, does that mean that those 75% were right? No, of course not. The majority theory is not true always. Of course this is a small point of contention, but true nevertheless.

Jesus was widely regarded as “out there” theologically, yet He was the Son of God. Think about that.

 

[Exporter]

ahimsaman72:

You are right. Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists all practice infant baptism.** Majority can’t always be right** .

You wrote,“Majority can’t always be right” OR The Minority cannot always be wrong.

This is a decieving statement. First one must define “the Majority”. Are we discussing a room of ten people or is it 80 million Catholics. As you stated it, it is meaningless.

If you are one who says the Majority is correct, that is false on it’s face. You certainly know of cases in which the majority was wrong!

To turn you statement around and say,“The minority can always be wrong” is patently false.

I wish you would use clear forthright English!!

 

[bengal_fan]

ahimsaman72:

I wasn’t sure about Presbyterians, but I suppose that makes sense.

If I were to take a poll of all Christians and asked them how many wise men came to give gifts to Jesus, 75% would say three. However, there is no indication of how many wise men actually gave the gifts. So, does that mean that those 75% were right? No, of course not. The majority theory is not true always. Of course this is a small point of contention, but true nevertheless.

Jesus was widely regarded as “out there” theologically, yet He was the Son of God. Think about that.

i would say that the 75% was right. look at every church council there has ever been. name one thing that, when the council voted or decided on, they were wrong. there has not been one. now, in a secular culture, the majority is not always right. but we aren’t dealing with a secular culture are we? we are dealing with an entity (the church) which is guided by the hand of God (the Holy Spirit) and has been promised to be free from error concerning faith and morals. of course i am only speaking of the catholic church in this sense, but even then, we should still look to see what the protestants believe and the majority of them practice infant baptism. the idea of adult only baptism is a new idea (last few hundred years) and is direct contrast with the entire history of
Christianity and the old testament forerunner of baptism which is circumcision. the point is, in the case of the church, the majority is right when it is agreed upon by the pope and infant baptism is overwhelmingly agreed upon in most Christian circles and therefore the one’s that don’t practice it are outside the norm and outside of scripture and tradition.

and, btw, there is an indication of how many “wise men” there were. 3 gifts were given. if there were more than three, there would have been more than 3 gifts as it would have been an insult to show up empty handed. that is a very big indication of how many there were and tradition follows that indication.