Which of the two was Not Baptized? Russell or Franz

golf2

I would appreciate it if someone could answer the above question with certainty.

Golf

emptywords

Why would you bring it up only to know one was and one wasn't... I dont' know, was one baptized a JW was one not baptized a JW... would have to say Russell.

Frank75

Like empty said, I doubt Russell was baptised as a Bible Student as he was likely dipped by one of the other religions or groups he was raised with or joined.

Freddie Franz is reported to have never submitted himself to a JW baptism (CoC I believe) as he was dipped sometime before he joined the bible students. He is most likely the one behind the WT position in the 60's and 70's that baptism doesn't join you to a religious organization or group but merely represents your dedication to God etc..

Of course the WT did a 180 in 1985 insisting that baptism then and now is somehow membership and a vow to a book publishing corporation.

Frank75

greendawn

It is likely to have been Russell who had already been through several churches, Presbyterian, Congregational and various adventist groups before establishing the WTS in 1881.

golf2

It was my understanding that Franz was not baptized as a witness. Am I to understand that one can be baptized in another denomination and if he associates or starts another religion, his baptism is official in the eyes of God? If so, then WHY must people who have been baptized in another religion need to get baptized to become a JW? Just a innocent question.

Golf

stev

Russell was baptized in 1874, according to the testimony of his sister in a Convention Report, as I remember in 1906. I have heard that George Storrs might have been the one to baptize him.

fjtoth

It was in 1918 that all other religions were judged and condemned, according to the Watchtower. Before then, baptisms by immersion in Christendom's churches were considered valid for entrance into the heavenly kingdom. Since he was baptized before 1918, that is how F W Franz explained why he never was baptized as a JW.

What he never explained is that the validity of those pre-1918 baptisms means that far, far more than 144,000 would have to be members of the so-called "heavenly class."

Frank

Frank75

Frank!

Good to see you up and online again. You playing hookie from work today?

We gotta have that coffee!

Frank75

golf2

Thanks Frank. Let me get this right, according Franz, what's good for goose is not good for the gander? Is all this a matter of convenience for some?

Golf

JeffT

Am I to understand that one can be baptized in another denomination and if he associates or starts another religion, his baptism is official in the eyes of God? If so, then WHY must people who have been baptized in another religion need to get baptized to become a JW? Just a innocent question.

Some, but not all Christian denominations accept baptism by another group. I was baptized as a witness under the old rules and that was good enough for the church I belong to now, given a couple of things. One, it was full immersion and two I was dedicated to God and had accepted Jesus when I did it. As I had become a Christian prior to being a dub, I was OK with that. Within mainstream Christianity it is understood that baptism is between you and God, not you and a group.

Cult groups seem to be the ones that don't accept baptism some where else. I know Mormons don't recognize anybody else's.

Which of the two was Not Baptized? Russell or Franz

Share this