Lutherans & SDAS agree & Unite

[Gregory Matthews]

For the past several years a Lutheran congregation in in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, has owned a building in which a SDA congregation  has also worshiped along with the Lutherans.  On April 13, 2019,  the SDAs assumed ownership of that building.  As part of that process, the Lutheran congregation will continue to share in the use of the building.   IOW, the building will continuer to be used by both groups for ministry.  This agreement included the Minnesota Conference (SDA).

For more detail, see the cited reference below.

The above information came from:  OUTLOOK,  June 2019, pages 20 & 21.

[JoeMo]

40 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As part of that process, the Lutheran congregation will continue to share in the use of the building.   IOW, the building will continuer to be used by both groups for ministry.  This agreement included the Minnesota Conference (SDA).

Good for them!  One of the SDA churches I attend rents the chapel in a Presbyterian Church.  Their reason - they have more resources to give to the community and church if they don't have to pay for building and maintaining a stand-alone church.

[dgrimm60]

GREGORY

thank you for  posting this  it  is  good  to  see  S.D.A.  churches

helping  other  church groups=====

I  have  lived  in  many different  states and   towns====and several  of these  S.D.A. churches

rented  out  the  church to  other  church  group

dgrimm60

 

[Gregory Matthews]

My understanding is that this is more than just renting out to another group.

[Kevin H]

I remember reading where Mrs. White talked in glowing terms about a Seventh-day Adventist church who allowed a Presbyterian congregation to use the church as well. I  think she would be very pleased with this.

[Gregory Matthews]

It is common for SDA congregations in the US to rent their  building to another denomination.  I see this example as going beyond a mere rental of the building.

 

[GHansen]

Any idea what brand of Lutheranism we are talking about? ELCA has many bedfellows, whereas the LCMS,  not so. That area of the USA hosts some even more conservative wings of Lutheranism.

Interested to know just how deep this alliance runs. Fundamentally, Adventism contradicts Luther, who, at his best, was an antinomian. Many SDA simply dismiss Luther as a beer swilling anti-Semite, including such influential  individuals as the late and venerable A. Graham Maxwell. Unfortunate that Lutheranism has made little progress for over 500 years on the issue of baptism, for example.

Some SDA point to the Reformation's "Third use of the Law" as a link with Lutheranism. It may be, but not with Luther. The "Third Use" was espoused by Melanchthon and Calvin, not Luther. A lot of Lutherans would probably have issues with EGW as an inspired interpreter of Scripture as well.

[Gregory Matthews]

Among the Adventists who would have a problem with the statement below, would be a woman named Ellen G. White.[/quote]

 

[quote}. . . EGW as an inspired interpreter of Scripture as well.[/quote] 

[Kevin H]

4 hours ago, GHansen said:

 

 

A lot of Lutherans would probably have issues with EGW as an inspired interpreter of Scripture as well.

Mrs. White had issues with the idea of her being an inspired interpreter of scripture. She saw her ministry as making application of the message of the Bible, of pointing out neglected portions of scripture, and to point out what was a part of the ancient culture and thus on the minds of the Bible writers and their audience as they wrote and heard and thought about scripture, but which is not a part of our culture and we would not think about had she not told it to us: the issues of the Great Controversy. 

But when it comes to Biblical interpretation and exegesis she tells us that is OUR job NOT hers. She even seems a bit envious of us and bewildered that people wanted her to interpret scripture. When asked to she would either ignore the request or tell the requester that this is their job not hers. When she heard people using her writings to interpret scripture she wrote things like "My writings are not to be used in answering questions such as 'what is the meaning of the daily?'"

[GHansen]

9 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

When she heard people using her writings to interpret scripture she wrote things like "My writings are not to be used in answering questions such as 'what is the meaning of the daily?'"

Church scholars would say that Calvinism doesn't reflect the theology of Calvin, that Lutheranism doesn't reflect the theology of Luther and, as you say, Adventism doesn't reflect the thought of EGW i.e., regardless of what EGW herself thought or said, she has become a de facto "inspired interpreter of Scripture." Difficult to understand just how she evolved into that. During the controversy over the law in Galatians, she was unable to even give her opinion of the matter because she couldn't find the manuscript recording what God had "showed" her. She despaired over the use of her writings during her lifetime, as she saw how they were abused and misunderstood.

Whatever Lutheranism has become today, at ground level, comparing EGW with Luther, each had a different emphasis. For Luther, justification by faith was the center of his message. For EGW, sanctification was her burden, which explains how the door was open to perfectionism/LGT, a teaching eschewed by Luther.

EGW explained that Luther considered the Second Advent hundreds of years away; therefore he couldn't have prepared people for the Second Advent. Problem with that is that Luther didn't teach that, at least not consistently. His "Sermon on the Last Days" is replete with examples from contemporary times indicating the nearness of the Second Advent.

As long as the Lutheran/SDA alliance remains superficial and convenient, there shouldn't be a problem.

[Gustave]

On 6/14/2019 at 5:32 PM, GHansen said:

Any idea what brand of Lutheranism we are talking about? ELCA has many bedfellows, whereas the LCMS,  not so. That area of the USA hosts some even more conservative wings of Lutheranism.

Interested to know just how deep this alliance runs. Fundamentally, Adventism contradicts Luther, who, at his best, was an antinomian. Many SDA simply dismiss Luther as a beer swilling anti-Semite, including such influential  individuals as the late and venerable A. Graham Maxwell. Unfortunate that Lutheranism has made little progress for over 500 years on the issue of baptism, for example.

Some SDA point to the Reformation's "Third use of the Law" as a link with Lutheranism. It may be, but not with Luther. The "Third Use" was espoused by Melanchthon and Calvin, not Luther. A lot of Lutherans would probably have issues with EGW as an inspired interpreter of Scripture as well.

In what way do you believe Lutheranism is deficient where Baptism is concerned? 

[GHansen]

7 hours ago, Gustave said:

In what way do you believe Lutheranism is deficient where Baptism is concerned?

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

 

QUESTION: The LCMS uses the “sprinkle” method of baptism, if you will. The people of the Bible, including Jesus, were baptized using the immersion method. Why doesn't our church follow the way Jesus was baptized by John?

ANSWER: On the basis of the evidence provided in the New Testament, it is not possible to prove that the term “baptize” always refers to immersion, nor that the Baptisms mentioned were all done by immersion — implying (in the view of some) that only Baptisms done by immersion can be considered valid.

In fact, taken as a whole, the evidence suggests otherwise. In some cases the term "baptize" is synonymous with “wash” (Titus 3:5-6; see also Heb. 9:19; Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16; and Mark 7:1-4 — a passage in which some earlier translators considered the term “baptize” to include the washing of “dining couches”), and it is highly likely that Baptisms were performed in the early church by methods other than immersion.

Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem, where no river exists and no mention is made of other large quantities of water that would or may have been used.

In fact, the shortage of water supplies in general in many parts of the ancient world would have precluded Baptism by immersion.

https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#baptism

 

Lutherans also practice infant baptism which may be more problematic that the mode of baptism.

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, GHansen said:

1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

 

QUESTION: The LCMS uses the “sprinkle” method of baptism, if you will. The people of the Bible, including Jesus, were baptized using the immersion method. Why doesn't our church follow the way Jesus was baptized by John?

ANSWER: On the basis of the evidence provided in the New Testament, it is not possible to prove that the term “baptize” always refers to immersion, nor that the Baptisms mentioned were all done by immersion — implying (in the view of some) that only Baptisms done by immersion can be considered valid.

In fact, taken as a whole, the evidence suggests otherwise. In some cases the term "baptize" is synonymous with “wash” (Titus 3:5-6; see also Heb. 9:19; Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16; and Mark 7:1-4 — a passage in which some earlier translators considered the term “baptize” to include the washing of “dining couches”), and it is highly likely that Baptisms were performed in the early church by methods other than immersion.

Three thousand were baptized on Pentecost in Jerusalem, where no river exists and no mention is made of other large quantities of water that would or may have been used.

In fact, the shortage of water supplies in general in many parts of the ancient world would have precluded Baptism by immersion.

https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine#baptism

 

Lutherans also practice infant baptism which may be more problematic that the mode of baptism.

I would say that's a valid answer and salient to note that the oldest Churches, hold the form of baptism you dislike,  as a valid form. 

The early SDA's kept reforming until they taught God the Father was a flesh, bone, blood, organ and member hominid God. 

The early SDA's kept reforming until they taught Christ and Lucifer were both archangels. 

I'm just saying historic Christianity got it right on the subject of the Trinity and got it right about Baptism. 

[Gregory Matthews]

It is an established fact the early leaders in what became the SDA denomination were NOT Trinitarian.

The comment by Gustave as to the hominid God seems to me to more reflect the thinking of  Dr. Kellogg, than it does the thinking of other SDAs.  It should be remembered that he went well beyond the thinking of what became the SDA denomination.

As to Christ as an Archangel:  As this has been developed in the SDA denomination, it is proposed that Christ, was a member of the Godhead, and was not a created being, more directly supervised the angels.  In SDA thought, Lucifer was never considered to be a member of the Godhead, and was considered to be a created being,  IOW, an angel.  If, from that perspective, it could be found that Lucifer, was considered to be a leader among the angels (He did lead in the rebellion), I would not challenge someone who considered him to be an archangel.

But, it should   not be thought that SDAs consider Christ and Lucifer to be equal.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

We should not consider the fact that a certain practice existed in the early church as an ipso facto establishment of that practice as a Biblical/Christian practice.  

After all, the early Church Councils were called to sift out some of the practices which were ruled not to be Biblical.

 

[Gustave]

14 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

We should not consider the fact that a certain practice existed in the early church as an ipso facto establishment of that practice as a Biblical/Christian practice.  

After all, the early Church Councils were called to sift out some of the practices which were ruled not to be Biblical.

 

Agreed, however the early Church Councils (to my knowledge) never called out the manner of Baptism employed by Lutherans today as unbiblical. Luther had no problem crossing theological swords with the Catholic Church and from what I understand Baptism wasn't one of those things he disagreed with.  

[Gregory Matthews]

I strongly doubt that Luther had any disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church as to baptism.

[GHansen]

The LCMS employs a somewhat slippery hermeneutic to justify sprinkling. Apart from a heavy reliance on the testimony of the so called 'fathers," they fail to consider the Scriptural examples of people actually being baptized. Jesus, for example, was baptized in a river. Since he came up out of the river, he was obviously baptized in the river (Matt. 3:16). When Phillip baptized, he went down into the water with his candidate and came up out of the water (Acts 8:38,39).

[GHansen]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 10:59 PM, Gustave said:

The early SDA's

Gustave, The early SDAs were likely regarded as a fanatical cult by other contemporary Christians. The Campbellites, for example, had tried to warn the Millerites, in a brotherly fashion, that they were headed for a great disappointment. SDA simply denounced them as Sunday keeping Babylonians, incessantly arguing with and debating them over the Sabbath and Decalogue.

EGW herself said that she hadn't heard the gospel preached among SDA during the first ~40 years of their existence. She said that U Smith, one of the most influential men in the church, didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote on righteousness by faith. J.H Waggoner, another thought leader,was involved openly in an adulterous affair. His son, EJ held  views on justification more akin to the medieval papacy than to  Luther's gospel; EGW considered his views "great light"  Sure. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. To put it roughly, early Adventism was a theological wreck.

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, The early SDAs were likely regarded as a fanatical cult by other contemporary Christians. The Campbellites, for example, had tried to warn the Millerites, in a brotherly fashion, that they were headed for a great disappointment. SDA simply denounced them as Sunday keeping Babylonians, incessantly arguing with and debating them over the Sabbath and Decalogue.

EGW herself said that she hadn't heard the gospel preached among SDA during the first ~40 years of their existence. She said that U Smith, one of the most influential men in the church, didn't know what he was talking about when he wrote on righteousness by faith. J.H Waggoner, another thought leader,was involved openly in an adulterous affair. His son, EJ held  views on justification more akin to the medieval papacy than to  Luther's gospel; EGW considered his views "great light"  Sure. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. To put it roughly, early Adventism was a theological wreck.

I would agree with your evaluation that early Adventism was a theological [train]wreck. My question however pertains more to Baptism and if you believe that the method of Baptism used by Lutherans or Eastern Orthodox Christians are of offense to God, OR, does God accept those methods of Baptism? 

An SDA who coverts to Catholicism does not get re-Baptized when they enter the Catholic Church because the SDA Church Baptizes In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Does a person converting to the SDA Church from the Orthodox Church, Catholic, Lutheran or many other Churches need to be re-baptized by an SDA Clergy because the SDA Church views a form of Baptism other than dunking un-valid and an offense to God? 

[Gregory Matthews]

As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church accepts baptism by immersion as a valid form of baptism and in addition, a convert to the Roman Catholic Church is allowed to be baptized by immersion by a priest, if the convert requests such and the priest agrees.  Probably that is seldom done.  My point is that if I am correct, it is allowed.

A convert to the SDA Church, who has been baptized in another Christian faith, by immersion, is allowed to join the SDA Church on Profession of Faith.  They are not required to be baptized again by SDA clergy.  However, they may request to be baptized again.

A convert to the SDA Church who has been baptized in another Christian faith, by a form other than immersion will normally be baptized by  immersion when they join the SDA denomination.  A classic example of tis would be an adult convert who   was baptized as a baby, in a manner other than immersion.  That person would likely want to be baptized by immersion to demonstrate that they are making an informed commitment to Christ.  However, in the time in which we live, I can not  say that an adult convert to the SDA Church who had been baptized in a manner other than immersion, could not find a SDA pastor who would allow them to join the SDA denomination on Profession of Faith.  But, such would violate SDA norms.

NOTE:  Part to the difference between the SDA understanding of baptism and that of some other Christian groups is that SDAs understand baptism to result from the informed decision of a person to commit to Christ.  In the understanding of some other Christian groups, baptism is a sacramental act and Confirmation is the act that demonstrates the informed commitment of the person to Christ.  It should be understood that SDAs understand baptism to be a sacramental act.  But, they understand that sacramental act differently from how some others understand it to be.

NOTE:  I would not state that SDAs view the other forms of baptism as an offense to God.  I would simply say that 
SDAs consider immersion to be the Biblical way.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As Gustave is responding to the discussion here, I will give further comments.  My source for my statements of Roman Catholic belief is given below, and when I bold a number in a comment, this number cites the reference I am giving below:

1272  "Baptism can not be repeated."  The SDA position differs from this.  We believe that a dedicated Christina can reject it all.  But, we believe that the salvation that Christ has provided us allows that person to repent and  return to being a follower of Christ.  As that rejection has likely been public, we believe that baptism, again, as a public commitment to following Christ may be appropriate and therefore, we do allow for baptism more than once.  We do not advocate additional baptisms each time a person sins.

1278 '"The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."   While SDAs limit baptism to immersion, we otherwise agree with this statement.

Source:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Second Edition,  (Promulgated by Pope John Paul II, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 904 pages. 

 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave,  Please note Chaplain Matthews response: " I would not state that SDAs view the other forms of baptism as an offense to God.  I would simply say that SDAs consider immersion to be the Biblical way." I agree wholeheartedly. 

Sprinkling is no more a baptism than Sunday is a Sabbath.