by Cold Steel 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"Make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit. " (Mt 28: 19)
"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." (Ac 2 : 37, 38)
Baptisms by women were/are not valid....even anointed baptized women
I was told growing up that dedication was the important step and if circumstances prevented a proper baptism that you would not be destroyed. After all Cornelius and his household received holy spirit in an unbaptized state, though baptized shortly after that.
That is correct Blondi. Why all the fuss about people having to be in the JW " ARK/ORG " for survival? If Christ is really the Judge and knows hearts then he will do what is just. There is not a damn thing a human could do against an all powerful Spirit, whatever decision he makes. It seems like you are better off not knowing anything. Back to the question at hand, what if you had a baptized annointed sister and an unbaptized brother? Could the sister wear a headcovering and baptize the Brother? What if this annointed sister had to baptize only sisters? Are they all going to die because she cannot baptize them? If she did would she sin against the holy spirit?
In my cong there was a woman who had MS. She was in her 40's and had studied for a few years. She was ready to get baptized but the dunking would cause a seizure. This was a given. Not a massive seizure but definetly some shaking and inability to speak clearly. So after an assembly about 10 of us gathered for this at a brothers house who had a pool in his backyard. This was about 10 years ago.
In the Anglican and Catholic churches, and I think in some of the Protestsnt churches too, anyone can baptise in emergency provided they baptise in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It is not at all unusual for a midwife to baptise a newborn who might not survive.
I don't think JW baptisms have much in common with baptisms in the churches. JW baptisms are not only dependent upon individual informed commitment, but are dependent on the say-so of elders who may or may not be capricious in their interpretation of the rules.
Catholic and Anglican baptisms, the two I can speak with some authority about, see baptism as a sacrament which means a vehicle for God's grace in a very particular form. As such, baptism is not dependent on any human decision or whim of anyone in authority, but is a once-for-all special action of God's own. Also, it cannot be undone, and it cannot be repeated, which means, according to the beliefs of the Christian churches, that any subsequent baptism in, for instance, the JW system, has no real validity as in a sacrament, although of course it will have meaning and deep significance to the participants.
Data, "in an emergency" in their own mind I suppose, but the person would have to then be rebaptized.
There is something on the CD in the 1950's WTS about this dilemma.
Jw's are wacko. Re-baptism? That is probably old light now. I just wonder if there is anything in print that specifically says that baptisms prior to being a JW are invalid? I will keep looking. The problem is that these guys have had 100+ years to cover themselves, AND they make up stuff as they go along, and they don't even follow the rules they make! Some of the O.D book last night, and I don't think I could answer all the baptism questions, it is ridiculous. Corporate and legalistic thinking at it's finest.
Don't the JW higher ups say that if you were baptized in another Religion prior to becoming a dub, that baptism is valid?
If I remember correctly this was changed many years ago, 1950's or even earlier.
George
Edited -
*** w56 7/1 p. 406 pars. 14-15 Why One Must Be Baptized ***
14 Often the question is asked whether one baptized previously in a ceremony performed by some other religious group should again be baptized when coming to an accurate knowledge of the truth and making a dedication to Jehovah. Because of what has been already said, now there is compelling reason for also saying, Yes, one must be baptized again. Obviously, by any of such religious systems one was never in reality baptized “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,” because had he been so baptized he would have appreciated the authority and office of such true Higher Powers.
Whatever was the stranger class, please? I've never heard that term before.
Yeah, how many questiions did you have to answer 50 years ago? And in who's name were you immersed? SEE ACTS
