Introduction

 

 

Baptism is a religious rite of prime importance in all Christian churches. Seventh-day Adventists (herein after referred to as SDA) recognize that "throughout the centuries the mode of entry into the Christian church has been the rite of baptism." [1] The SDA Church officially acknowledges the importance of this ceremony of initiation when it states in its Church Manual that "the New Testament establishes baptism as the rite for admission to the church. [2]

The question we shall address in this paper is how the SDA Church has come to allow a person to have a second baptism. Should a person have a renewal of his/her baptism in light of what is felt to be a more authentic evidence or commitment of his/her faith? Should indeed a person be "rebaptized" if he/she has been baptized before? In order to gain a better understanding of this issue we will investigate how Adventists have understood and responded to those questions.

The early Adventist believers where initially affiliated with different Christian bodies but where united in their hope in the imminent return of Christ, which was a great unifying factor for them. Many of these Advent Christians, who where baptized in a different manner in their churches, where increasingly ridiculed and even disfellowshiped because of their believes. After the great

disappointment in 1844 these Advent Christians increasingly had to face the question of how to deal with people who wanted to join the newly forming Adventist movement and therefore requested baptism or desired "rebaptism" because they had gained new light on present truth or who had been baptized in the Adventist Church but had completely abandoned their faith and apostasized but then happily repented and wanted to rejoin the SDA Church.

The great disappointment led them to a deeper study of the Scriptures which revealed to them that many Christian practices where the fruit of tradition, rather than the teaching of the Bible. Thus baptism, as a sacred Christian ordinance, [3] has been practiced from the beginning of the SDA church by immersion. [4] Accordingly baptism was and still is administered in the SDA church to those who have reached an age of accountability, [5] When we look at the question of baptismal renewal within the SDA church this fact needs to be kept in mind in order to account for some of the responses taken by Adventists on the issue of "rebaptism" and baptismal renewal.

With these preliminary remarks we are now ready to enter into a concise discussion of the issue of baptismal renewal [6] within the SDA church. However, in order to better understand the practice of baptismal renewal we have to briefly look at the SDA understanding of baptism.

 

The Mode and Meaning of Baptism

 

We shall first briefly look at the accepted mode of baptism within the SDA-church before we will deal with the meaning of baptism.

 

The Mode of Baptism

 

All Christians consider the mode of baptism important, and Adventists are no exceptions. From the beginning SDA have practiced baptism by immersion. [7] This was and is considered to be the only biblically accepted mode of baptism. [8] Thus, SDA's have rejected infant baptism, or baptism by sprinkling or pouring of water on the baptismal candidate, because they believe that there is no Scripture warrant for such a practice. [9] The Adventist pioneers based their view on the mode of baptism not only on the meaning of the baptismal rite but also on the meaning of the word itself. [10] Here they gave the Baptists due recognition for their "Scriptural stand" on these issues [11] and evne quoted prominent non-baptist theologians who expressed themselves in favor of immersion. [12] When the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists was organized in 1863 one would expect that the issue of baptism would be addressed because up until that time there was no formal organization which would unify teachings and practices on the question of baptism. However, to our knowledge nothing did happen along these lines because "at that time there was a fair amount of unanimity on the meaning of baptism and how, who and to whom it should be administered." [13] With this in mind we will now turn to a brief discussion of the meaning of baptism in the SDA Church.

 

The Meaning of Baptism

 

Time and space does not allow us to provide an in depth investigation into the Adventist understanding of the meaning of baptism at this juncture. [14] Nevertheless, we would like to point out a few important aspects, in as much as they contribute to a better understanding of the issue under investigation.

From the very beginning baptism's meaning has been intimately related by Adventists to its mode. [15] Hence, the act of being buried with Jesus Christ through baptism into death in the water grave and to be raised from death to new life in the fellowship with our Lord and Savior symbolizes the crucifixion of the old life and the public confession of receiving Christ into our life. [16] In the words of

Ellen G. White:

 

Baptism is a most solemn renunciation of the world. Self is by profession dead to a life of sin. The waters cover the candidate, and in the presence of the whole heavenly universe the mutual pledge is made. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, man is laid in his watery grave, buried with Christ in baptism, and raised from the water to live the new life of loyalty to God. [17]

 

When people at the entrance of their Christian life are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, they are thereby publicly declaring that they make all worldly considerations secondary to their new relation in Christ. [18] Thus, according to Ellen White "Christ made baptism the entrance to His

spiritual kingdom. He made this a positive condition with which all must comply who wish to be acknowledge as under the authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." [19] In other words, baptism marks true repentance, [20] the crucifixion of the old life, [21] and signals the new birth or conversion. [22] The definition, that baptism means death to sin, burial and resurrection is already repeated often in early Adventist articles dealing with the subject of baptism. [23] Consequently, infant baptism or baptism by sprinkling or pouring of water is considered unscriptural and was rejected as such.

Another significant aspect of baptism, that is of eminent importance for an adequate grasp of the Adventist understanding of this ordinance can be seen in baptism as being a symbol of a covenant relationship. [24] As covenant sign baptism symbolizes the cutting away of sin and the cleansing of the heart from evil [25] and encompasses mutual covenant obligations [26] as well as the call to covenant faithfulness towards the covenant stipulations, and here especially to God's holy law. [27] The following comment by J. H. Waggoner can be seen as typical for the early Adventist understanding of baptism and its connection to God's law:

 

"If we are living in sin, we are surely not dead to it; it is impossible to be dead to sin, and to live in sin at the same time. And he [Paul] gives a demonstration of this death to sin: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

This ought to be conclusive to every one. If we are not dead to sin, why were we buried? The proper time for burial is after death. The proper time for burial in baptism is when we die to sin--to the transgression of the law; for "sin is the transgression of the law." But they who still live in violation to the law could not have been buried in this order. They were buried alive; "the body of sin" was not destroyed; the "old man" in them still lives. This is what is plainly taught in Rom 6." [28]

This intricate and close connection between baptism as covenant sign and God's covenant law reoccurs repeatedly in early Adventist literature [29] and can help to unlock the rational for the practice of "rebaptism" and baptismal renewal within the Adventist movement. Early Adventists argued, that a person should, as a response to God's free salvation that is accepted through faith, cease to willfully

transgress God's law and must be living in harmony with God's law before one is to be baptized by immersion into the Adventist church. Otherwise there is no harmony in God's family. This is not to be misconstrued as Legalism or as an attempt to earn favor with God through human works of obedience. Rather, Seventh-Day Adventists, along with other holiness movements like the Anabaptists, [30] believe that through God's unmerited grace man is called to live a holy life, leaving behind as it were his former life of sin (cf. Rom 6:6ff) and demonstrating a new life of obedience as disciple of Christ in faithfulness to

God's law and his will. [31] On the issue of baptism Adventists show a greater theological affinity with Anabaptist theology than with Luther or Calvin and other prominent Protestant theologians. [32] If one believes that the church consists of people who voluntarily commit themselves to the fellowship of Christ in the church and to the discipline of their fellow believers, the idea of the purity of the church becomes very important.

Since baptism is understood as a covenant sign in this sense "from the beginning SDA's, . . . have rejected any view of baptism as an opus operatum, that is, as an act that, in and of itself, imparts grace and effects salvation" [33] This belief distinguishes SDA's from other Christian churches, notably from the Roman Catholic understanding of baptism, [34] but to some extent also from the Protestant understanding of baptism. [35] Even though baptism is vitally linked to salvation and forgiveness of sins in Adventist thought, [36] Adventist do not believe that it guarantees salvation. [37] Baptism understood as a covenanat sign does not carry in and of itself the unrepeatable character that is so characteristic for a sacramental understanding of baptism. [38]

At this point another significant aspect of Adventist theology has some bearing on the issue under investigation and that is "the effectiveness of human choice as the determining factor in each man's salvation." [39] SDA's acknowledge that God has endowed man with a free will. "God in grace and mercy, desires that all men shall be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, but He leaves with man the choice of accepting or rejecting His gracious gift. Every man is therefore responsible for his own destiny. [40] On this point SDA's differ from the position of Calvin [41] who has opted for a double predestination and irresistible grace, as well as other Protestant Reformers, such as Luther. [42] On the issue of human choice and the role of the human will SDA's are more in line with Arminian thought [43] and the Anabaptist theological tradition. While SDA's have not formally identified themselves as Arminians "the general Arminian point of view has come to characterize their doctrine." [44] Thus, SDA's have rejected the idea that a person once saved is always saved. Instead it is possible to fall from grace and loose one's salvation. [45] If this is true, then the reverse is true also, namely that it is possible on principle for a person to come back to Jesus Christ and to renew his covenant with God again.

All these questions and considerations had a direct relation to the question of "rebaptism" and baptismal renewal [46] and need to be kept in mind as we will now turn to some specific statements where this idea has been proposed and endorsed by Adventist theologians and thought leaders throughout our history.

 

"Rebaptism" and Baptismal Renewal

 

Even though there is evidence that the practice of baptizing those who where not baptized according to the biblical mandate, i.e. by immersion, was something fairly common in the Sabbath-keeping Adventist movement from the time of its inception [47] the question of baptism and rebaptism appears to have never been a big issue among Adventists. [48] It is no surprise then, to learn that only "very little research has been done on the question of rebaptism in the SDA church." [49] One reason for this relative scarcity of material in dealing with the issue of baptismal renewal in the SDA church might be seen in the fact that we are here touching upon a rather sensitive area where not only the actual experience of individual church members is at stake but the theological interpretation of one of the most significant ordinances of our faith as well. [50]

We will first deal with the question how SDA have understood the issue of "rebaptising" those people who previously where not baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by immersion.

 

"Rebaptism"

 

Since the Adventist pioneers believed immersion to be the only acceptable and biblically valid form of baptism, those previously baptized by any other method where considered as though they had never been baptized at all. In other words, the question that arose in early Adventism with regards to the practice of "rebaptism" was not whether a person should be baptized again who had not received the biblical baptism by immersion. Such a person was not considered to be baptized in the first place. [51] J. H. Waggoner, for instance, expressed this idea forcefully as early as 1857, when he dealt with the "prejudice (we can call it nothing else) that exists against rebaptism," when he wrote: "Of the propriety of baptizing those who have been sprinkled, either in their infancy or at any other time, scarcely a word need be said; as that is not baptism, to such it would not be rebaptism." [52] Some ten years later James White repeated the same idea with similar words in an article entitled: "Re-Baptism." According to James White rebaptism "means to be baptized again. . . . I do not refer to those people who have been sprinkled or had water poured upon them; for such have never been baptized." [53] Thus, according to the understanding of those leading voices in early Adventism a person who had previously been sprinkled or baptized by a form other than immersion was not rebaptized but was considered to be baptized for the first time. [54]

Baptism was regarded to be essential to the Christian experience. It was believed that "the new life of the Christian properly commences at baptism," [55] and that baptism by immersion was required for those who had previously been baptized by sprinkling, pouring or any method other than the biblical example. Yet, early Adventist readily acknowledged that God the just "judge will excuse those who have never had an opportunity to be baptized, and who never had any light upon this subject; . . ." [56] In like manner Uriah Smith comments on this point by saying: "And while many doubtless will be saved who have never been immersed, those who have the clear light upon these subjects will be judged according to that light, and the manner in which they walk in that light." [57] The question that needs to addressed now is whether under certain circumstances baptismal renewal is called for, even when the person had been properly baptized, perhaps even by an Adventist minister, or whether a person can and should have his/her baptism renewed, after he/she has abandoned his/her faith and has experienced a new and genuine conversion.

 

Baptismal Renewal

 

Given the Adventist understanding of baptism as described above it comes as no surprise that we do find several instances where people received a renewed baptism, even though they had been baptized biblically correct by immersion or even had been baptized within the SDA Church. It appears that those instances can be grouped under several headings which indicate the various reasons that gave occasion for such an action.

 

Serious growth in faith

Those who were baptized as believers by immersion but did not keep all of God's commandments pose a special problem. [58] J. H. Waggoner, for instance, responded to those by saying that they ought to be baptized again, for sincerity of purpose in a wrong course of action is not a substitute for correct action when the wrong is made manifest. [59] A few years later, in 1867, James

White, mentions several reasons why a person might need to renew his/her baptism along similar lines. We shall draw attention to some interesting points.

James White allows for the possibility of Baptismal renewal, when new or greater light comes to a person and awakens within him/her a recognition of new duty, especially as it relates to God's law. [60] James White, for instance, comparing the baptism of John and the later baptism of the Ephesian disciples who had earlier been immersed by John the Baptist, writes:

 

"Mark this. Those stood in clear light at the time of both immersions. They only advanced from light to still greater light. In our case most of us were in darkness, wrapped about with Babylonian garments or those still more filthy. We were pursuing in a wrong direction. The truth stopped us, turned us about, stripped us, and cleansed us. If two baptisms, while walking on the plane of truth, were required eighteen centuries ago, how much more requisite in the cases described above." [61]

 

 

As early as 1857 the reference in Acts 19:1- 7 to "rebaptism" was interpreted to indicate that the apostle Paul himself had adopted the practice of "rebaptism". [62] Because of their acceptance of the Johannine baptism as of divine origin, early Adventist leaders readily agreed that Acts 19:5 was a case of "rebaptism". [63] This incident was then applied to the experience of those who were previously baptized by immersion in other Christian churches and who, as it was felt, stood in need of "rebaptism" or baptismal renewal at the time when they embraced fuller truth in significant areas of the Christian faith, such as God's law which functions as covenant stipulation. [64]

Ellen White also used Acts 19 in similar reasoning when she wrote in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul, (1883):

 

"There is still another lesson for us in the experience of those Jewish converts [in Acts 19:1-7]. When they received baptism at the hand of John, they were holding serious errors. But with clearer light they gladly accepted Christ as their Redeemer; and with this advance step came a change in their obligations. As they received a purer faith, there was a corresponding change in their life and character. In token of this change, and as an acknowledgement of their faith in Christ, they were baptized, in the name of Jesus. Many a sincere follower of Christ has had a similar experience. A clearer understanding of God's will places man in a new relation to him. New duties are revealed. Much which before appeared innocent, or even praiseworthy, is now seen to be sinful. The apostle Paul states that though he had, as he supposed, rendered obedience to the law of God, yet when the commandment was urged upon his conscience by the Holy Spirit, 'sin revived, and I died.' . ..There are many at the present day who have unwittingly violated one of the precepts of God's law. When the understanding is enlightened; and the claims of the fourth commandment are urged upon the conscience, they see themselves sinners in the sight of God. 'Sin is the transgression of the law.' and 'he that shaIl offend in one point is guilty of all.' The honest seeker after truth will not plead ignorance of the law as an excuse for transgression. . . . He reveres God's law as holy, just, and good, and he repents of his transgression. By faith he pleads the atoning blood of Christ, and grasps the promise of pardon. His former baptism does not satisfy him now. He has seen himself a sinner, condemned by the law of God. He has experienced anew a death to sin, and he desires again to be buried with Christ by baptism, that he may rise to walk in newness of life. Such a course is in harmony with the example of Paul in baptizing the Jewish converts. That incident was recorded by the Holy Spirit as an instructive lesson for the church." [65]

 

The experience of the Ephesian believers in Acts 19 is taken to imply that they were "rebaptized" because of their acceptance of fuller light and as a result of the modification of living required by the new light. [66] This makes sense, once baptism is understood and seen as a covenant sign in a covenant relationship, where God's law determines the conduct and sets the guidelines for the covenant

relationship and the transgression of God's holy law is understood to be sin.

This also helps to understand, why the new light of the seventh-day Sabbath, as God's covenant sign, played such a prominent role in connection with the question o f "rebaptism".

 

Premature baptism

One other reason for rebaptism is seen in cases of so called premature baptism. "Some of us where not prepared," James White writes. "We were buried alive," [67]

i.e. some had not repented and died to their own self when baptized. Similarly, the premature administration of baptism is pointed out when he writes: "Some of us did not know what we were being baptized. The minister said we must, and so we obeyed." [68] Obviously in those cases no mature decision was reached on the part of the believer who was baptized and the formal rite of baptism without the corresponding conviction in the heart and mind of the believer was not considered sufficient for a living covenant relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

Baptism through unholy hands

 

Another reason listed by James White is the administration of baptism through "unholy hands." [69] A few years earlier, in 1861, we find reference to the issue of unauthorized baptism and the necessity of "rebaptism" in the question of a certain J. Bostwick, who inquired concerning the following situation:

 

"Dear Bro. White: I wish to ask your advice with regard to the following: The elder of this church, after being disfellowshiped by the church in this place, took it upon him to administer the ordinance of baptism and the Lord's supper to a band of brethren thirty miles distant. Can this be considered valid? Is it necessary for these brethren to be again baptized? They were ignorant, at the time, of his standing." [70]

 

James White responded by saying, "We give it as our opinion that it had better be all blotted out by the persons' referred to being baptized by a proper administrator." [71] It seems as if this problem manifested itself especially in the early Adventist church with its still loosely organized structure. [72] What probably

was at stake in this case was the perfomance of the rite of baptism by an unauthorized person who was not officially recognized by the Adventist pioneers and believers.

It is not unreasonable to believe, that James White had this or similar situations in mind, when he later wrote: "The administrators in the case of some of us were men of intemperance and lust. They were slaves to tobacco, tea, and coffee." [73] A statement like this can be understood better by taking into consideration the religious dimension SDA's have seen in the health message and the close relationship between the health message and the third angels message, [74] which lies at the core of SDA identity and mission. Adventists have a concern for health not because of any legalistic reasons. Health principles are not observed in order to be saved, but rather because Christ has already redeemed us. Health, however is related to religion in that it enables us to have a clear mind with which we can understand the will of God and a strong body that enables us to do it. [75] It is most likely within this context that James

White has said that

 

"some modem administrators have not only been in error when they performed the solemn ordinance in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but were at that moment at war with such vital truths as Bible purity and the gifts of the church. Their principal message was to justify themselves in the use of tobacco, fight the gifts, and circulate lying reports concerning Seventh-day Adventists. They were then the servants of the Devil, in rebellion against the work of God, and were preparing themselves for his wrath." [76]

 

Again the deeper issue seems to be that unauthorized persons did perform baptisms, persons who did not serve the church and in fact even propagated lies about the SDA church.

R. F. Cottrell, a few years later, pointed out that the acceptance of the baptized believer with God does not depend upon the conditions in the administrator of the rite but on the repentance, the faith and the heart obedience of the receiver of baptism. Although no true believer would knowingly submit to receive the ordinance from polluted hands, should later developments prove that the administrator was a Judas, it could not change the heart of obedience of the receiver and make it unacceptable in the sight ofGod. [77] Even in recent times similar problems have arisen in the SDA church through baptisms conducted by so called "Private Ministries" which are active at the margins or even beyond the borders of the official SDA church. [78]

 

Thorough apostasy

 

Another reason why a person may stand in need to renew baptism is when he/she has reconverted from a major apostasy. Again James White, in dealing with the problem of those who apostatized and afterwards repented and became Christians again, maintained that such individuals should indeed be "rebaptized", This is his argument:

 

"Again, some who now stand firm in the truth, have, since they were baptized, gone back and sinned worse than before. Since their apostasy, they have repented as never before, have believed as never before, and have -- no, have not been baptized. They go back beyond their apostasy, for baptism, and patch it on to repentance and faith under the third message. Did they repent when they first yielded to the claims of the gospel? Then when they heard the third message their cup of repentance was a hundred fold more bitter. Did they back there exercise faith in the Savior? When the faith and hope of a coming Redeemer to restore all things burst in upon them, and they saw by the light of the heavenly sanctuary and the third message the great work of preparation for that event, their faith grasped tangible things with a clearness and strength a hundred fold more than their former faith. And now what shall be done? Tell them they must stop at faith? At their first conversion, the order of events was, repent, believe, and be baptized. At their second conversion the order is repentance, faith, and . . ." [79]

 

How often could one apostatize and be baptized again? Seventh-day Adventists have historically not advocated a deterministic view of salvation where one is "once saved" and therefore "always saved." Instead, the Adventist understanding of Scripture allows for the possibility of falling from grace and for

thorough apostasy after having fully believed in God. It is within this theological context, that James White could write:

 

"if baptism should follow faith and repentance twice, it may ten times. Why not? But should we be baptized as often as we sin? If we sin to that degree that we lose our faith, which apostasy calls for a thorough repentance and a complete resurrection of faith, then we need a baptism, if it be ten times. A sinner is a sinner, though he may a hundred times during his probation, if such a thing be possible, come into favor with God, and then lose that favor. And if a sinner needs faith, repentance, and baptism, at one time, he needs them at another." [80]

 

This statement by James White has to be interpreted in its proper context to be adequately understood. One immediately notices that the way James White has worded his conviction, makes it clear that he is not advocating a limitless renewal of baptism. He is simply stating his conviction, along biblical-Arminian lines, that it is possible indeed to lose faith and to regain it, even several times, if such a thing is possible.

It should also be carefully noted that James White does not recommend baptism for every time we sin, but only for those situations when "we sin to that degree that we lose our faith." In other words, he speaks here of a complete apostate condition, a situation when "a complete resurrection of faith" is needed.

Furthermore, James White seems to have had in mind the experience of those

Second Advent believers, who in the aftermath of the great disappointment had thoroughly abandoned their faith, yet had repented and through the light of the heavenly sanctuary and the third angels message had gained a new and thorough faith experience and re-conversion. Such a spiritual experience could

not be accounted for in a Calvinistic setting, where God from eternity has foreordained those who will be saved and those who will be lost. Thus, it seems that James White, along with other early Adventist pioneers, is reacting against the strong prejudice that existed against any such experience on the side of

their opponents. [81]

Ellen White also allowed for the possibility of rebaptism in the case of a thorough apostasy and genuine re-conversion. She writes: "When a soul is truly reconverted, let him be rebaptized. Let him renew his covenant with God, and God will renew His covenant with him . . ." [82]

No hasty conclusions should, nor have to be drawn from any such statements. Even though allowing for the possibility of baptismal renewal in the life of the believer, both, Ellen and James White, do not support a hasty or superficial reenactment of this sacred ordinance. This becomes clear in

James White's own words, at the beginning of this same article when he writes: "That one immersion is sufficient when administered to and by the proper person at the right time, we fully believe." [83] And at the end of his article he responds to the question whether we should be baptized every time we sin, by saying:

"There are degrees of sin. No man living is so free from what may be regarded as sin, but he may with propriety every night pray. 'Forgive me, Lord, for the sins I have this day committed.' Yet by no means should he have a daily immersion. But as often as he apostatizes, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, so that all his acts of righteousness are blotted out, and he return to repentance and faith, he should be baptized, if it be his sad yet privileged lot to take these three steps a score of times. If God accepts the first step, and Christ the second, the church should not forbid the third. Amen." [84]

 

It is imperative to notice that James White recommends baptism, not every time one sins, but only for those serious situations which result in the thorough loss of one's faith and which require a complete resurrection of faith.

James White as well as other SDA pioneers seem to have been rather reluctant in rebaptizing Adventists frequently and hastily. The reason for this may be found in a possible reaction to some extreme Millerite enthusiasm for "rebaptism" prior to the spring of 1843 (and possibly just before the autumn of 1844). [85] According to one source

 

"if, at the midnight hour, a mere child expressed a desire to be baptized, the whole company promptly appeared at the water's side to participate in the ceremony. It was not uncommon for a zealous number of the sect to be baptized several times. On such occasions, many of them disported themselves in the water in a manner not fully in accord with the solemnity which is expected at such times." [86]

 

This practice, which appears to have extended even beyond the Disappointment of 1844, [87] was discouraged by early Adventists and was considered fanaticism. [88] Repeatedly Ellen G. White has called attention to the need of a thorough preparation on the part of the candidate before baptism. [89] The need of thorough education and preparation before baptism is also present in the words of G. D. Ballou, when he writes in his article entitled "Buried alive":

 

"If John's example were followed, there would be fewer cases of backsliding, and not so many would call for rebaptism. The church would in some cases be fewer in numbers, but stronger, because they would have less burdens to carry. May God hasten the day when such premature work shall cease among us." [90]

 

It seems as if the lack of preparation of baptismal candidates was one of the main reasons for the need of baptismal renewal. [91] The world wide SDA Church would do well to heed the words of J. H. Waggoner, who wrote in 1878 about the situation among North American ministers:

 

We deprecate the practice of baptizing people on too slight evidence of purpose of heart,-- with a conversion altogether too superficial, or no conversion at all. We have reason to believe, and it pains us to record it, that there are ministers not a few in this land of privileges, who think far more of the numbers they are able to call in and baptize in a given time, than of the Christian walk, of the stability and integrity of their converts after they are baptized. . . .

Such workmen would do well to remember that their work is yet to be tried, and if it does not abide they will suffer loss. . . . Often we have seen the record set forth that so many scores were baptized during a certain meeting, while in a year from that time the strength of the church under whose auspices the labor was performed, was not a whit increased by the effort. Wood, hay, stubble are not accepted for the building, and bring no reward to the builders.

It is true that the Scriptures give no warrant to put off the baptism of the penitent. But we should have some evidence of sincerity and purpose of heart; evidence that the claims of God's holy law, and the requirements of the Scriptures for a holy life, is somewhat appreciated. As the "Present truth" for any age should receive our most earnest attention, even so the prevailing errors of any age should be specially guarded against. If there is danger of erring, it is better to even err on the side of carefulness where a want of caution, because of prevailing false teachings, is likely to cause the professing believer to settle down into a state of false confidence and self-deception. [92]

 

This statement has not lost its relevance for it seems that the problems that have arisen because of the consequences of a too careless practiced baptism have precisely been a continual source of burden within the SDA church until the present time. [93]

Wherever holiness movements have existed where right living was stressed as a corollary to right thinking and faith and discipleship was taken seriously, the question of the purity of the church became important. [94] Here Adventist stand more in the tradition of the so called "left wing" of the

Protestant Reformation or the "radical Reformation" as it is sometimes called. Thus, it is not surprising that in their practice of baptismal renewal SDA's do not stand alone. [95]

 

Respecting the individual conscience of the believer

 

It should be noted, however, that some Adventists apparently unduly urged "rebaptism" on others as being necessary for salvation. Therefore the 1886 General Conference Session, held at Battle Creek, Michigan, from Nov. 18 to Dec. 6, took their stand on "rebaptism" and accorded freedom to everyone on this question. The action taken by the General Conference in its twenty-fifth annual session is reported in the 1887 Year Book on p. 45 and in the Stirmme, a magazine printed in German at Battle Creek. [96] It reads:

 

"The Theological Committee presented the following report, which was adopted: -- whereas, We learn with regret that in some places certain persons have urged the subject of rebaptism as necessary to salvation; and -- whereas, This has caused trouble and division in some churches, and the mind of this body is asked; therefore --Resolved, That upon the subject of rebaptism of those who have been properly baptized before embracing the message, it is the teaching and practice of our people, founded upon the Bible, as we believe, that they be received into our churches without rebaptism if they themselves are satisfied with their former baptism, though it is the privilege of such to be rebaptized whenever they shall desire it, as most of our people do sooner or later; but that it should not be urged upon anyone as necessary to salvation."

 

It should be observed that the General Conference resolution dealt only with the cases of "those who have been properly baptized before embracing the message." About one week after the G.C. session was over, Ellen White wrote one her largest treatise on rebaptism. In it she states that "the subject of

rebaptism should be handled with the greatest care. . . . No one should become the conscience for another or urge and press rebaptism. This is a subject which each individual must conscientiously take his position upon in the fear of God." [97] Ellen White also urges some zealous brethren not to overdo this matter making it a test for others, which the Lord has not bidden them to make. "It is not the work of any of our teachers to urge rebaptism upon anyone. . . . let God do the work of convicting the mind and heart." [98]

About five years later Uriah Smith talked about this issue in the same language when he writes:

 

"While it is generally held among our people that rebaptism is proper under certain circumstances, as in cases of first conversion to the full understanding and intent of the law of God, or of restoration from a state and period of complete apostasy from the truth, it is also held and taught that this matter should be left to the individual conscience of every one, to act as he or she may feel that duty demands, and that no pressure should be brought to bear upon any to lead them to act contrary to, or even in advance of, their own convictions in the matter." [99]