When did the Watchtower start baptising converts?

by Philippus79 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Philippus79
    Philippus79

    Interesting Freddy Franz discussion, but would anyone know when they started having their "own" baptism? Let's say a "bible student" or a "jehovah's witnesses" baptism?

    And while we are there, does anyone know if Rutherford "invalidated" the baptism of those who split off?

    Thanks,

    Phil

  • blondie
    blondie

    Do jws invalidate the baptism of people who da or df or are even labeled "apostate"? Never heard of it. I even know of jws who da'd themselves who were later reinstated and did not have to be rebaptized and people who were "anointed" that were reinstated as "anointed" jws.

    Many people who considered themselves Bible Students up until 1931 when the name was changed to Jehovah's Witnesses still remained with the WTS. They did not have to be rebaptized as a Jehovah's Witness and as far as I know those Bible Students that split off did not have to be rebaptized.

  • RR
    RR

    I could be wrong, but I recall where Franz was baptized in the nominal systems and because he felt his baptism was valid, he did not get reimmersed when he joined the Watch Tower.

    RR

  • Athanasius
    Athanasius

    I remember reading in Crisis of Conscience about Fred Franz's baptism. If I remember correctly, Fred had been baptised (sprinkled) as a Presbyterian and, therefore, was immersed when he joined Russell's Bible Students. However, Freddy felt that had he been immersed before becoming a Bible Student that a second immersion would not be necessary.

  • Philippus79
    Philippus79

    Thank you!

    Is a JW baptism then a "baptism into Christ"? From the logic I can deduce from the OT, a baptism is a cleansing for the entrance into a covenant. How do they handle that?

    Phil

  • RR
    RR

    My mistake, on page 115 of "In Search of Christian Freedom", Ray Franz commenting on a conversation he had with his uncle that had "his [Fred's] baptism in the Prysbyterian Church had been by immersion (rather than sprinkling) he would have considered it still valid."

    Apparent as lonfg as ones baptism was underestood to be a dedication, and trhat it was a total immersion, it was accpted. This changed in 1956. When ALL converts were to be immersed regardless.

    RR

  • lost-in-time
    lost-in-time

    Check this! Yearbook 1978 page 86:

    Many who became pioneers in those days [193X] did so without having been baptized. Even the branch director, Brother Dos Santos, was not baptized until October of 1935. It was not until the book Riches appeared in 1936 that baptism began to be given the proper emphasis in the Philippines. On page 145 of that book it was made clear that “submitting to be immersed in water is an act of obedience illustrating how one has fully put himself in the hands of the Lord, and therefore baptism is necessary and proper to be performed by all who have agreed to do the will of God.”

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit