We got mail…

What a relief!

Thank you again for your uplifting and liberating ministry! And thank you so much for putting the Cleveland, Ratzlaff, and Canright books online for easy access!

I really appreciated Darrel Carson’s article, especially the part where he recognized that the Holy Spirit spoke through him to renounce Ellen White.

This last week’s Canright chapter 13 was a great help in explaining how the Sabbath was confined to the Jews. I always wondered about God sanctifying the Sabbath after creation and whether that meant it was universal for eternity. Canright clearly delineates how it was not mentioned again until Exodus, nor was it practiced by the patriarchs. And he backs this up with many church authorities, so there is no room for doubt.

It is so wonderful to be liberated from the burden of the Sabbath! 

It feels like it takes forever to rid myself of Adventist indoctrination (just like Darrel Carson related). But, to quote an old TV ad: “Oh, what a relief it is!”

Thank you for your ministry of the true gospel!

—VIA EMAIL

 

Attacking Everything Adventist

I am amazed that whenever I read your articles the authors always mention “when they were freed from ADVENTISM”. Is that all you are about—attacking everything about Adventists? Is there nothing good about the church, but everything is bad? 

I am left to wonder—what does God think about all this? Every belief of Adventism is wrong, yet you want me to believe whatever you say is correct? Are you errorless in your critique of Adventism, or are you ever wrong? Please! 

I studied the Bible. I was not baptized in a crusade, but I came to Adventism from the Pentecostal church. In my innocent mind, I thought that the Adventists were the closest to Bible truth. But now I see on the internet that more than 25 groups are attacking Adventism. Could it be a fulfillment of that prophecy that the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus?

Tell me the REAL reason that the Adventist church is false!!

Blessings.

—VIA EMAIL

 

What about infant baptism?

In light of the FAF podcast you put out this week I have a few questions. Why do most Protestants not baptize babies? If baptism is not about having an intellectual assent to a belief system like Adventism does, why can’t babies be baptized? Truly you agree that babies can believe in Christ. John himself leaped for joy about the coming of Christ in his mother’s womb. Why can’t infants have the same belief and thus be baptized? 

The early church fathers such as Iraneus in 189 AD wrote and believed that babies should be baptized: “He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189])-Iraneus.

Why does FAF not believe in infant baptism? This isn’t a huge issue for us, but I would just like to know your take one the issue?

—VIA EMAIL

RESPONSE: Thanks for writing! First, I do not believe infant baptism is a heresy. It is certainly an accepted option within some Christian denominations, and infant baptism does not affect whether or not one believes in the Lord Jesus. Belief is what counts; both people who practice believers’ baptism and those who practice infant baptism can have true fellowship together if they are trusting Jesus and are born again. We worship with people who have been baptized as infants and have never been immersed; they are true believers. 

Second, our personal belief in believers’ baptism is because of the pattern of Scripture. In general, the pattern of Scripture is that when people heard the gospel and believed, they were baptized. Some instances had the people manifesting the Holy Spirit before their baptism (Cornelius’s household in Acts 10), and some after their baptism (the Samaritans in Acts 8), but belief preceded the baptism. 

I understand that there are Christian traditions of doing infant baptisms as the “Christian version” of circumcision, that the baptism is what brings the infant into the covenant community—but again, this model isn’t actually taught in Scripture. Rather, what I see is Romans 4 and Colossians 1 explaining that the “circumcision done without hands”—the new birth—is what brings people into the community and into the new covenant.

I also see the pattern in Scripture that baptism is not what corresponds with regeneration (see Acts 10:44–48; the unborn John the Baptist–Lk. 1:15; the thief on the cross: Lk. 23:39–43). God regenerates people as Hs wills, and baptism follows. In some cases, such as the thief on the cross, baptism is not possible because death overtook the believing thief. I believe the Lord put that story into the Bible partly so we would know that our belief and spiritual life are entirely acts of God and do not depend upon an action we do. 

All to say, I understand that there is a strong tradition of infant baptism within certain denominations, but I see that practice flowing from tradition rather than directly from the apostles’ teaching and practice. Again, I do not consider infant baptism a heresy; I just don’t see it being taught in the pattern of Scripture! The pattern we see in Scripture is the pattern of believer’s baptism, and Jesus told His followers to make disciples and to baptize all nations, teaching them to obey all that He taught them.