Jehovah`s Witness/baptism answwer
I was with you all the way when you answered those questions concerning JW baptism. Now I don't know if you were right on or not. have you seen Sister T's remark about your analagy of JW baptism? She sounds like she knows her scriptures pretty well. Don't get me wrong derrick, I'm still with you on most things but now, I am having second thoughts on JW baptism.
Hello Jonathan, and thanks for writing.
When you asked if I had seen Ms. T’s remarks about my answer to another questioner on JW baptism, the fact was, I had not seen it at the time. So after reading your question, I had a few minutes before leaving for work, and decided to check out her response. But it had not yet posted to the forum when I went to check on it, so this made me think that perhaps you had been the person who sent her the question, and that maybe she had replied to you. It was the only way I could figure how you could have seen her reply, before it posted in the public forum. It wasn’t until about an hour after I tried to check her response, that it finally posted, when the forum updated as it does each day.
At any rate, let’s discuss this issue of baptism, straight from the Scriptures. When Wayne asked me that question, he was asking me about the JW practice of asking the prospective baptismal candidates 2 questions prior to being baptized, and one of those questions having to do with pledging to an Organization. He wanted to know if this was how the early Christians did it.
Now, let’s be clear….The only way we have to determine if the JW practice is consistent with that of the early church, is to simply read the Scriptural accounts, and SEE if there is any indication that this is how they early Christians did it. And there simply is NO indication in the Scripture that the early Christians ever once mentioned being baptized in conjunction with ANY organization, or that they made them wait a length of time, or that they asked them “2 questions”, 80 questions, or 104 questions….as the practice has varied in the WT from time to time.
So, this issue is not really about whether I am right, or whether Sister T is. The issue is about whether the BIBLE is right, or if the WATCHTOWER is. If the Watchtower can give just one example of the early Christian church having the same requirements that their Organization places upon baptismal candidates, then the discussion is over….they win. If they don’t have any such example, then the discussion is STILL over…The Bible wins.
So, when I read what you said about Sister T having some pretty convincing Scriptures to this effect, I really wanted to see what she wrote, and I wondered how I had missed all of those passages in my many times reading through the New Testament. I really wanted to see what those Scriptures were, that justified their practice of:
1. Requiring the baptismal candidate to answer a series of questions, beyond that they have trusted in Jesus Christ for salvation.
2. Proving to any body of elders, that they knew Bible doctrine.
3. Demonstrating that they had a track record of “doing the will of God”, prior to baptism.
But I have to admit that I didn’t see any such passages in her reply. Now, what I did see, were some fine Scriptures listed that show we are supposed to be DOING the will of God, instead of merely CLAIMING we have faith in Christ. Of course, that was never the point under dispute to start with.
With no disrespect towards Ms T personally, I was once again disappointed (but not at all surprised) that she immediately attempted to “poison the water”, and also misrepresented our position. This seems to be a regular practice with these people.
By “poison the water”, I am referring to this statement….
“ It's good that you are baptized, and as you know Satan and his religions teach the very opposite of what Jehovah teaches from the Bible.”
This appears exactly 2 lines into her response, but the implication clearly is that I am guided by Satan, for the purpose of teaching the very opposite of what the Bible says. However, she conveniently left out, that the very question I received from Wayne to begin with, was precisely ABOUT what the Bible says, and whether or not the WT practice lines up with it. My response was pretty in depth, examining what the Bible actually does say, and how the WT has no Scriptural precedent for their practice, which goes beyond the Scripture. That is why I closed with the following comment…
“ So in conclusion, the Watchtower practice of carrying out water baptism, has no resemblence to the Biblical precedent that we see.”
After making this statement….
“I am not sure if the 2005 practice is still in effect, but whatever the number is now, if it goes beyond the SCRIPTURAL guidelines, then it is not following what the Bible teaches on this subject. This should serve to illustrate how the Watchtower certainly goes beyond what the inspired Word of God actually teaches.”
I think its pretty obvious that my only interest on this subject, is finding out what the Bible teaches. I am not the one who belongs to a group that cannot show a Biblical precedent for its baptismal practice…she is. So naturally, instead of just showing us an example in the Scripture where the WT practice was used in the early church, she merely tried to divert attention on to me, and claim that I am here to turn people from the Scriptures, when in fact, it is HER religion that goes beyond the Scripture on this topic….not mine. It is her reply that tries to defend extra-Biblical requirements for baptism…not mine.
Again, typical. But in all her Scriptures that she listed, did you see the Watchtower practice outlined in ANY of them? I didn’t. And that is what the original question was about in the first place…What the Bible says.
And by the way, much of what she commented on, was actually copying and pasting an article that she didn’t even write, and then interjecting her comments here and there. She said so herself.
So, it is quite simple….If they can show Scriptural support for the WT requirements, then why didn’t she? I never cease to be amazed, or amused, that these people continue to try their pitiful “rebuttals” of posts showing Scriptural truth, but they ALWAYS, mark it down, without fail….try and change the subject, and attack the person. And they still think it is effective.
What do I mean by “changing the subject”, and “poison the water”? Well, notice another comment from Ms T…..
“They teach in one form or another that we have souls that never die, or that God is a sadistic torturer who works with Satan by sending people to him to burn forever in hellfire, when we know that Satan is angry because he has a short period of time left, he will be destroyed. So how will he be able to accept the ones that God is supposed to send his way when he won't even be around? Some teach that Jesus is almighty God .... so that right there should help you to stick with Jehovah and his people, even if there are some things that you may not understand at this time. “
If you want a clear cut case of “poisoning the water”, this is it. The implication here is that if we have other teachings that they disagree with, then this is proof positive that the comments about baptism are false, and that it is a good reason to “stick by the Organization”. Not ONE single Scripture listed anywhere, that actually supports the Organization’s practices….none. Just the idea of…“Well, since they believe this and that, then you should just listen to the Organization on baptism too, even though I can’t give you a Scripture that supports our extra-Biblical practices”
Sorry, but that is mind manipulation at its finest. You complimented me the other day for “calling it like it is”, and that is what I am doing now….Calling it what it is.
The fact is, yes, we DO disagree with the WT in regards to Jesus’ identity, the existence of Hell, and what happens after we die. And I will be happy to discuss any one of those issues with Ms T, with nothing more than an open Bible, if she is so inclined to do so. But I won’t hold my breath.
However, NONE of those subjects has a thing to do with the topic of baptism. Even if they were RIGHT on those other topics (which they are not), that still has no bearing on the baptism discussion. Each topic has to be examined from the Scriptures individually. She wants to imply that the Watchtower teaching/practice on baptism, is correct by default, because of these other teachings.
The fact is, those other teachings have nothing to do with the topic that was under discussion, which was....baptism, and the extra-Biblical practices of the Watchtower in regards to what they require for baptism. The other issues raised, are only diversions, and have nothing to do with the topic.
One thing is predictable with JWs in any discussion of this nature…..Diverting attention off the issue, by changing the subject. Just keep watching….
But my question is….If the Watchtower practices of asking questions and making the new convert WAIT for a period of time before baptism is Scriptural, why didn’t she just show a Scripture where this was done?
Ask yourself that same question….Why didn’t she just show one? I think the answer is obvious.
One more thing she said, that honestly had me scratching my head. I’m not sure exactly what to call this, except for maybe “muddying the waters”….Bringing up 2 unrelated issues, to cause confusion, and yes…divert attention.
I’m referring to this….“This will help you see that it's more then just only believing involved with getting baptized, yes, believing is a major part of it, of course, but it's not the only part.
If that were the case then once saved always saved would be a Bible teaching, but it's not. We know that the Bible says, the one that endures to the end will be saved (Matt 24:13) “
I had to read that comment several times, to try and figure out what possible connection that saying you have to do more than believe on Christ in order to be baptized, has with the doctrine of Unconditional Eternal Security. The fact is, it has NONE whatsoever.
Among Christian groups today, there are groups that believe that “once saved, always saved” is a Biblical teaching, and others (such as most Pentecostal groups), do not hold to the teaching of “once saved, always saved”. And I will guarantee you, that BOTH groups will agree with me 100% on this issue of faith in Christ, being the only Scriptural requirement for baptism.
I would really like for her to please explain exactly what one has to do with the other? Believing that the Scriptural example for baptism should be followed and not ADDED TO, has absolutely nothing to do with whether one believes in Eternal Security, or not. It’s a completely different discussion altogether.
I’m also not sure how Ms T thinks that the WT way of asking a person questions about their baptismal “worthiness” that are nowhere found in the Bible, or making them “prove themselves”, solves the problem about “enduring to the end”. Does she not think a person can backslide and fall away from God, even AFTER going through the entire WT procedure, as well?
That point of hers, simply made no sense at all.
But again, the 2 topics were completely unrelated. Believing that faith in Christ is what is required for baptism, does NOT have any bearing whatsoever on whether “once saved, always saved” is true, or false. None.
However, I do want you to notice just how HER statement here, DIRECTLY contradicted what we see in Acts 8.
She argues that “it's more then just only believing involved with getting baptized”
Is that a fact? If so, then AGAIN….Can she show us a Scripture that would indicate that a person cannot get baptized, with faith in Christ alone?
This is simple, and I really hope Ms T will get it this time, because her statement is in direct contrast with the Scripture.
Let’s read it AGAIN, from the Scripture in Acts 8.….
Acts 8:36- “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?”
Okay, the Ethiopian asks a simple question. I will put it in modern-day terms. He asks, in effect, “Hey, there’s a nice pool of water….Why can’t I be baptized now?”
Acts 8:37- “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”
Now, this was the perfect and ideal time for Philip to mention the “other things involved besides faith”, that Ms T has just told us about. But try as I might, I see nowhere that Philip said “If thou believest, and show that you are fully indoctrinated, and have shown your worthiness by going out in field service, and after you answer a couple of questions, then thou mayest.”
I don’t think that is what it says.
There was exactly ONE requirement given….ONE…..
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”
I kind of wonder if Ms T had been there that day, if she wouldn’t have tapped Philip on the shoulder and asked “Hey, what are you doing? This guy has never been out in service, and we don’t know if he will even GO to the Kingdom Hall after he leaves here, so you can’t baptize him until he has proven himself”
. One can only wonder.
Okay, after reading where Philip gives him merely ONE requirement for baptism (even after Ms T assuring us there are more), we have the Eunuch giving Philip assurance that he was a believer.
“And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
Okay, I’m waiting for Philip to reply….“That’s great, but its not enough. Faith is only one of the requirements, and there are a couple more”
That reply never came. Instead, here is what happened next….
Acts 8:38- “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.”
Apparently, it was enough for Philip that this man had confessed that he whole-heartedly believed in Jesus Christ, because he baptized him….Right then and there, on the spot. No other requirement.
Now, this is why her argument about the demons also “believing in Jesus”, is so silly….I really didn’t know I had to explain to her, that nobody is referring to “belief” in the sense of HEAD KNOWLEDGE, or knowing something is true, but not following it. The “belief” that is required to be a Christian, is a HEART belief, where one places his/her trust in Christ’s atoning blood shed on the cross, as the payment for their sins. Doing this, produces the new birth, by which a person becomes a child of God, and then commits to do His will. I think it safe to say, that while the demons do know that Jesus Christ is the Savior, they have not come to Him in faith, and trusted Him for salvation. Should that even need to be explained to her?
Another thing….Where she gets that this Ethiopian was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, is beyond me. Although this idea has been suggested by some, there is absolutely NO solid evidence anywhere, to support it. I might also add, that there are also some who think this eunuch was a homosexual man, and again, there is NO evidence at all that this is the case.
If she thinks that his being in Jerusalem to worship, proves that he was a Jewish proselyte, then I wonder if she also believes the “wise men” coming to worship, also means they were Jewish proselytes? No, she does not….She believes they were occultic astrologers.
Now, on the subject of what type of “eunuch” this Ethiopian was, that has several possibilities, that I had personally rather not get into here. But let me just say this…If he were a true “eunuch” in the sense that many believe he was, then he would not even have been allowed into the temple to worship. So, simply saying he came to Jerusalem to worship, in no way proves he was a convert to Judaism.
And even if he were, I find it interesting that she uses this supposition, to show that he was ALREADY doing the will of God. Yet, the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that the Jewish religion had been rejected by Jehovah God, so now all of a sudden, being a Jewish proselyte is “doing the will of God”? Seems rather convenient to argue both sides, whenever it suits one’s convenience.
The fact is, he could have been a proselyte, or merely a God-fearing man, such as Cornelius. Furthermore, he could have been merely curious about the Jewish religion and was wanting to learn more about it. The fact is, there is nothing in history that answers this question, so for her to invent a “factoid” out of thin air, and then use it as the basis to build her entire argument, is rather irresponsible. Especially when the argument doesn’t help her point either way, since they believe the Jewish religion was no longer doing the will of God. So, it doesn’t help her argument even if he was, because his being a Jew would NOT have been “doing the will of God”, even in JW theology.
But here’s the thing….We have the Scriptural precedent, and it supports my contention that when a person places their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, then they not only CAN be, but are SUPPOSED to be, baptized. There is no Scriptural precedent to asking them questions, having them to commit to an Organization, or “prove” anything, or be fully indoctrinated in the teachings of some group.
Its really up to every person reading, to decide whether they want their baptism done according to Scripture, or with a lot of extra-Biblical requirements added to it, and which one would be the most pleasing to God.
Let me summarize by saying this….In order to see whose position is correct regarding baptismal practices and procedures, we must actually look at verses that DEAL with baptismal practices or procedures. That is how we know the Bible’s teaching on the matter. It does nothing for one’s argument, to use Scriptures that have nothing to do with baptism.
So with that in mind, let’s examine a couple of the verses she used to defend the Watchtower practice of making a person wait for baptism, until they have proven themselves, or satisfactorily answer questions regarding their dedication to an Organization.
Matthew 7:21- This passage clearly teaches that not everyone claiming to be a follower of Christ, actually is a true follower. She also made reference to Matthew 24:13 (out of context, I might add), however, neither of these passages have any reference at all to baptism, as baptism isn’t mentioned anywhere in the context. Furthermore, it is possible (according to the Scripture), to prove to be a fraud and insincere follower of Christ, even AFTER being involved in the church for many years, and even after undergoing baptism. While a shame, that simply has nothing to do with making everyone “wait” for baptism.
So, this passage does not even come close to teaching that you “must be DOING God’s will”, to undergo baptism. It teaches you have to be doing God’s will, to be viewed as a true follower in the end., and that many who profess to be followers of Christ, are not. It is not an indication for waiting a period of time for baptism.
In fact, if anything, it shows a group of people who THOUGHT they were in good standing with God, because of their WORKS IN HIS NAME, but instead, they were told….“I never knew you.”
I believe its clear that, if Jesus NEVER knew them, this is not referring to a group of true disciples who turned away, but rather to some who were not true disciples to begin with.
Again, this has nothing to do with how long a TRUE believer in Christ, must wait to be baptized.
So, why not just show us a Scripture that DOES pertain to baptism, and discuss that one?
What we saw here, was a “bait and switch”….Implying that she was going to deal with the claim that JW baptism wasn’t according to Scripture, but then immediately giving a Scripture that does not pertain to baptism.
She writes also….“So the misconception of ONLY believing unto Jesus and you will be saved for all time is not Biblical.“
Here is what the Bible says….
Acts 16:30-31- “And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
Okay, so I guess now we should expect that, after believing on Christ, there should be some requirements and some things that the prison guard and his family must do, and “prove”, before being baptized.
So, let’s read and see what those requirements are….
Next 2 verses, verses 32-33….“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway”
But where are the extra requirements?
Uhm, rather than there being a requirement to prove that he had BEEN DOING God’s will, we have the man getting baptized the VERY SAME HOUR that he became a believer in Christ. Yes, that’s right…the very same hour. That point is very important to get….This man is baptized, not 6 months later, not after “DOING GOD”S WILL” for a time, not after proving himself to the elders….But within ONE HOUR after becoming a believer in Christ.
Exactly how much indoctrination can a person undergo in one hour? Certainly not as much as the Watchtower requires of its converts.
This account in Acts 16 is entirely consistent with what we see in Acts 8 with the Ethiopian. In fact, it was even QUICKER this time. And it is consistent with the pattern we see throughout the New Testament, in regards to Christian baptism.
So, this is how one can determine who is right, and who is wrong. This isn’t about Sister T or me….Its about the Bible method, vs. the Watchtower method. And we see the Biblical pattern go against the WT method, time and again.
I guess next, she will be telling us that this Philippian jailer was also a Jewish proselyte, who already was familiar with the Bible, as well?
That is one reason I take exception to her contention that the Ethiopian was a Jewish proselyte, well-versed in the Scriptures and Messianic prophecy. Really? Is that why he was reading the excerpt from Isaiah 53, and even considered the possibility that Isaiah was speaking of HIMSELF? This man didn’t even know that this was a Messianic prophecy…He understood what it was saying, but didn’t know if Isaiah was talking about himself, or someone else. Doesn’t sound like he was too well indoctrinated to me.
There are so many other things in her response that I could cover, but I’m not going to devote much time to it. Like where she said that any group who baptizes you, you become part of that group/Organization. Again, this is a person who is very sincere and no doubt, a decent person, simply not knowing what she is talking about. I am not going to argue that point with her. I am an ordained Baptist preacher, and when I was pastoring, I baptized many people. And not once did we ever baptize anyone into the “Baptist faith”….We baptized them, "upon profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". The term “Baptist” was never mentioned. In fact, I have baptized people who professed faith in Christ, who did not even join a Baptist church. It is true that a person CAN join a church through baptism, or by letter from another church, however simply being baptized by a Baptist, etc, does not make that person a Baptist. So, that statement of hers, shows that she was simply uninformed of the facts, as usual.
A couple of other problems that were not quite accurate in her response….
“1. Yes the Ethiopian was baptized the same day he was reading Isaiah in the Bible, but he did not come to realize it was speaking about Christ, Phillip had to explain it to him.
Yeah, that is the entire point….He needed to have his faith in Christ, before being baptized. This was THE requirement, and the ONLY requirement given. I believe that is what I said in the first place.
But nobody within the Watchtower Society, can be baptized the same day that they become a believer. That was the entire premise of Wayne’s question to me….Whether the WT practice of baptism, is the same as what the Bible says. And it isn’t….for this very reason.
“Obviously the part of the Ethiopian going to Jerusalem to worship was ignored, because it proves that he didn't just begin believing on the side of the road, he was on his way back home from going to worship in Jerusalem”
No, it wasn’t being ignored…It is simply irrelevant. Regardless of what his reason for going to “worship”, or what his religious persuasion was prior to meeting Philip, he was not a believer in Jesus Christ. And this was the key to his being able to be baptized as a follower of Christ….He had to first come to faith in Christ.
So yes, he DID just “begin believing” right there in his encounter with Philip. Not that he didn’t believe SOMETHING before….But he was not a believer in Jesus Christ, and that was what mattered.
“2. Again, it's obvious that the part of the Ethiopian traveling to Jerusalem from Ethiopia to worship was ignored and proves that he did not just believe the same day he was met by Phillip. But he was already a believer and is why he was traveling such a distance in order to worship. So yes, he was taught or "indoctrinated" when he went to Jerusalem to worship.”
Again, completely inaccurate. He certainly did become a believer in Jesus Christ that same day he met Philip. He didn’t even know ABOUT Jesus Christ, prior to that, so how could he have already believed in him? Again, this is not to imply that he had no belief about anything….but he was not a believer in Christ. When he became a believer in Christ, he was a worthy candidate for baptism….not before, and not 6 months later, after being grilled with questions, and proving anything to anybody.
Again, the exact point I was making.
So no, he was NOT indoctrinated in the teachings of Christ prior to that, or in Christian doctrine in general. He didn’t even know who Jesus was, prior to that day.
She wrote….“This is just an opinion of someone who was not there, no one knows what the Ethiopian did after his encounter with Phillip because the Bible does not say what he did, except for rejoice. But we do know what Jesus said at Matt 28:19, 20 to go therefore and make disciples baptizing them .... teaching them to observe all the things he had commanded. So that helps us see that the only way you can do that is by being active in the preaching work. So it's more logical that he would follow Jesus' commandments.”
It is true that I was not there, and it is refreshing to learn that Sister T, or some of the WT representatives, were. Actually, no, they weren’t either. So, that is why we go on what the Scriptural account tells us. It tells us the man was baptized, after answering ONE requirement….That he believe in Jesus Christ with ALL his heart. That was it. He affirmed this belief, and he was baptized.
And yes, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that this man likely continued to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings, and grew in the faith, and fulfilled Jesus’ command to go and make disciples himself. But that really has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Nobody is disputing the fact that a Christian is supposed to follow Christ, and DO GOD”S WILL. That never was the point. The issue is, does a person have to “do God’s will” for a period of time BEFORE baptism, to prove they should be baptized, or can they be baptized upon faith in Christ, and THEN grow in Christ, and live the rest of their lives doing His will? I think the Scripture has been quite clear on that point.
In fact, it is worth mentioning that this is the entire purpose of baptism….It is an outward profession of our inward, heart-felt faith in Jesus Christ. It is a public acknowledgment that we have become a follower of Christ, and intend to do His will. Why this was brought up as a point of contention, is beyond me. Of course a Christian who is baptized, is supposed to do God’s will! We all know that.
But the disagreement is….Does that person have to “prove” themselves by “doing God’s will first, to make sure their profession is real, before being baptized? Or, is the Scriptural precedent, to baptize a person who places their faith in Christ, and then they spend the rest of their lives doing God’s will?
So far, the Scripture is on our side…not theirs.
She also wrote…“So merely putting faith in Jesus being all that is needed is not scriptural according to what Jesus said and according to the details we read about the Ethiopian from the Bible.”
Actually, with all due respect to her, this is EXACTLY what the details provided in the account of the Ethiopian, show us…That faith in Jesus Christ, was THE pre-requisite to baptism. And yes, it is Scriptural….for it consistently follows what we read in the Scriptures.
Not to mention that the passage in Acts 8:36-37, SAYS that this was the only requirement given.
You know, its one thing to say that someone else’s view is not Scriptural, and yours is….But its another to prove it. Why does she claim something is unscriptural, when it is exactly what we read in the context of the Ethiopian, and then she doesn’t even provide ANY Scripture for her religion’s baptismal practices? Isn’t that a little bit odd?
But of course, she, or any JW here, is more than welcome to show us one single passage, where the Watchtower practice has a precedent in the Scriptures. I would like to see it, if they can provide it. But I think its odd that, in all the writing that has been posted on this topic, we are still yet to see the Watchtower practice ANYWHERE in the Scriptures.
Why is that?
Oh, and on a little side note to DW....Apparently Mr. DW wants to get out from under the embarrassment of knowing that his religion's requirements are not found in the Scripture, so rather than just deal with that fact, he lists all of these so-called questions that "Derrick" and "Christendom" cannot answer. Of course, he neglects to mention that he has never once SENT me any of those questions to answer, but hey, once again we see just another diversion. The fact is, his questions CAN be answered.
But again, that has nothing to do with the fact that he knows full well that his religion's practices concerning baptism have NO Scriptural precedent whatsoever, so he attacks instead of just answering.
Okay, back to the topic at hand....
But I was struck by how many statements in the article she copied and pasted, actually supported my contention, and not hers. I quote from her article….
“That Christian baptism required an understanding of God’s Word and an intelligent decision to present oneself to do the revealed will of God “
It would be more accurate to say that Christian baptism requires an understanding of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the intelligent decision to present oneself to do the revealed will of God.
But the second part of that statement, is accurate….it’s a decision TO do the will of God…Not proof that you have already BEEN doing it for several months.
If so, why do we have so many examples of people being baptized the very DAY they become believers? Where is the Watchtower practice of making them wait, answer questions, and prove themselves, found ANYWHERE in the Scriptures?
Another quote…“Before they could be baptized in water they, therefore, had to come to God as believers in his Son Jesus Christ. Then, according to Christ’s example and command, they would properly submit to water baptism.—Mt 3:13-15; 28:18-20.”
Again, the very point I was already making….That belief in Christ is the pre-requisite for baptism…Not indoctrination, not having a precedent of doing God’s will, not proving anything to any elders.
So again, I challenge the readers….See what the Scriptures say, and then try going down to your local Kingdom Hall, tell them you have just believed on Jesus Christ, and intend to spend the rest of your life learning and doing His will, and that you want to be baptized TODAY, without delay. See if the Scriptural precedent will be carried out, or if you will be subjected to requirements that not one JW on here can show us anywhere in the Scriptures.
People can imply that I’m trouble-making all they want to. That matters zero to me. I was asked a question by a man wanting to know if the Watchtower’s baptismal practices were what we read in the Scriptures, so I answered him. The facts are the facts….The WT practices have no Scriptural support. That was the question, and that was my answer. It is not my fault if people want to defend something that the Bible does not teach…that is their fault. I don’t have an Organization that I have to uphold or defend…they do. I can simply give you what the Bible says, and people can take it or leave it. They, on the other hand, feel the need to make the Bible fit and defend their practices, and in this case, they have no Scriptural precedent to go on. That is not my problem, however.
I want to thank you for inquiring about this topic and asking for clarification, and for an answer to her comments. I am happy to provide an answer. Always remember that it isn’t what someone SAYS the Bible teaches, or this notion of “Just believe whatever the Organization says, because they are the only ones doing God’s will anyway”
…..No, it is simply this….What does the Bible say about the matter? And the Bible does not teach the Watchtower requirements for baptism.
Now in closing, I need to say that I will be on the board until about Wednesday. After that time, I will be “on vacation” for about a month. My son is leaving in just under a month from now, and I am taking some time off the board to do some things with him, as well as taking a family vacation before he leaves. I will leave my name on here for a few days, however, in case you need any clarification on this matter, and also to appease those who think I am going “on vacation” because of this discussion. The fact is, I was going to remove my name this week-end, but since this topic came up, I will leave it on a few more days. That way, you can follow up if you need to, and any JW that wants to argue about it, can feel free to write me, as well. However, please know this is going to be a very busy week for me, and my answers will not be lengthy, due to preparing to go out of town. I will be very happy to discuss this issue in greater detail, after August 18th. Thanks for understanding.
Take care, and have a great day.