Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:32Hi all, I have been mulling over this subject for a while in relation to the changes that were made by the Society to the wording of the JW baptism in...is it 1985?..when, I think, they changed the 'holy spirit' part of Jesus command at Matt 28:19 for baptism to 'being identified as a JW in association with the spirit directed organization' (or something like that) I am wondering what your views were on the validity of the baptism since that time in the light of the Scriptures, and the possible repercussions of that change. It appears to me that it is essentially a denominational baptism now, in that it is as much about joining a specific group and signifying loyalty to the WT as symbolizing dedication to God. If this is so, is this baptism valid? For instance, in the light of Acts 19:1-5, is is possible that no one who was baptised after 1985 as a Witness could become anointed, as they were not baptised as per Jesus command? Are there other possible repercussions, or can the baptism 'formula' given by Jesus be altered without great concern? I'd love to hear your thoughts? Much Philia. Izzy.
Post edited by: admin, at: 2004/09/16 20:33
| | The topic has been locked.
admin
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:34Hi Izzy, This is a reflex reply! I was baptized in 87, knew nothing of the changes to the questions, but the whole ceremony for me was just a public declaration of a dedication I'd already made in my heart. (interestingly, I made my dedication in 85, I wonder if it was before the new questions...) My conscience is clear. But, if nessecary, I will happily get baptized again, properly. The new questions are shocking! SoC PS - Didn't Cornelius recieve Holy Spirit before he was baptized?
| | The topic has been locked.
admin
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:35Hi SoC. Interesting. So many possibilities with this subject. I can't help feeling that the manner of the baptism is important somehow. True Christianity has few 'rituals'. So the commanded rituals we have must really mean something. There is only baptism and the memorial. I'll run through a few thoughts, if that's OK and we'll see where it goes.
It's true that Cornelius and his family recieved the spirit before baptism, but that was an exception, as I understand it. It appears that Peter was not ready to see the Gentiles as fully acceptable to God and probably would have denied them baptism had they just asked for it. That's how I read those verses anyway. So on that occassion, perhaps Jehovah acted as he did, pouring out the spirit prior to baptism, in order to show Peter and the Christian Jews that Gentiles must not be denied baptism and fellowship as Christians.
The pouring out of the spirit on the Samaritans was done some time after baptism, rather than at baptism It occured when Peter and John laid their hands on them. On this occassion among the Samaritans, at Pentecost among Jews, and the anointing of Cornelius and his Gentile family, the 'keys' of the kingdom were being employed (is that right?) which were given to Peter to FIRST open up access to the Kingdom to Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. So Peter had to be there when this FIRST occured, but not subsequently, once the 'door' had been opened. So I'm not sure that the way things occured on these three occassions with the pouring out of the spirit in relation to the timing of baptism is indicative of how they were to occur generally through the first century.
What it does show though, as I see it, is that there is perhaps no absolute rule that anointing must take place at baptism. However baptism always took place, either beforehand or after. And we can be sure I think that, whenever it took place, it took place according to Jesus command: in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit. Not so today among JWs.
But I do get the impression that, after the employment of these 'Keys' by Peter, anointing among Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles took place AT baptism, as it had with Jesus, upon whom the anointed are patterned. Acts 19:1-8 seems to indicate this, as does Acts 2:38, 9:17-19. Gal 3:26, 27. Rom 6:4
However, the obvious fact is today that anointing has taken place among some JW's after baptism. And evidently among some who were baptised after 1985 when the 'spirit' part of Jesus command for baptism was dropped.
So what is going on? Is there therefore no problem with the change? I have real trouble believing that what people are 'baptised into' can be changed by an organization and that this disobedience to Jesus command (as I see it) does not have some real consequences.
My own musings throw up several possiblilities. I suspect that anointing should occur at baptism, but that Jehovah is merciful to some of those who, despite their denominational baptism, were very sincerely intending to dedicate their lives Him - rather than merely 'become a JW' - and have since that time tenaciously held that loyal course, whatever it may bring and wherever it may lead. In short, that at their DEDICATION and in their subsequent life course, these ones who became anointed adamantly DEDICATED themselves as per Matt 28:19, 20, even if the ritual of their baptism as carried out by the Society did not reflect this. I hope that makes sense. I wonder though, if more JWs may have been anointed had they not been taught to view their dedication and baptism and service as part of joining an organisation and accepting it's doctrines (the many pre-baptism 'questions' make this quite clear.) * I also wonder if that might not be a reversible situation. It occurs that, perhaps, those who have become anointed in recent times have unknowingly made it through an unnecessary spiritual obstacle course to anointing, set up by the Society, which hinders anointing. Others have not made it through. Matt 23:13, 14. 15:6.
I realize that this is a bit of a controvertial subject (if too so, then by all means zap it Epig and I may not have expressed my thoughts very well. It also touches on many other related issues and understandings. Perhaps some may also think it's not a very important subject. But in the light of Acts 19:1-5 and 1 Pet 3:21 I think the subject of proper baptism is maybe an important one to consider. It certainly has given me cause for much consideration, and still does.
So again, any more thoughts would be appreciated.
* Footnote (fancy huh? The elder asking my questions actually fell asleep - three times - while going through them. No kidding! I had to slap my book off my knee to wake him up
Philia.
Izzy.
| | The topic has been locked.
admin
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:36Izzy said: "I realize that this is a bit of a controvertial subject (if too so, then by all means zap it Epig and I may not have expressed my thoughts very well. "
Hey Izzy, this is far too important a topic to be zapping stuff without hearing what is to be said. I have a lot of thoughts on this too and I know some that have very interesting thoughts too on Matthew 28:18,19 - including the thought that this disciple making command is yet to start.
I am kinda in that camp myself and I have been reviewing the baptism thing too. I suspect we have been premature on that too. This is not in any way to invalidate our dedication. For example, the baptism of John must have meant something back then. I am just thinking though that there will be a more meaningful one later.
Just my thoughts so far. Will come back with some more later. You will see the chat event arranged for 9:00pm our time is linked to this question.
PS - I know it was you guys who invented this whole GMT thing and decided that all time should evolve around London but it was you that put US 12 hours ahead. Perhaps Steven Hawking was alive back then and just shifted time and place.
PPS - you should also know that I have now been disfellowshipped some two weeks ago. Just in case that cause a problem
much aphillianess - ePig
| | The topic has been locked.
admin
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:37Hi Epig. Some interesting comments. I look forward to hearing more on your perspective of Matt 28:18, 19 and thoughts on the preaching work and baptism. Facinating. I'm so glad we have a place to truly discuss things openly. "PPS - you should also know that I have now been disfellowshipped some two weeks ago. Just in case that cause a problem"
Not really...I have a feeling that it will be because of a strong desire to stand up for what is right and an openminded search for truth. I hear there is a lot of that over there.
Very Much Philia Brother. : )
Izzy.
| | The topic has been locked.
admin
Admin Admin
Posts: 113
Re:Baptism - 2004/09/16 20:39Izzy said: "I'm so glad we have a place to truly discuss things openly."
There is a lot of stuff that we have been working through down here on the table of Jehovah and how we are to offer up our sacrifices of praise.
Just to give you a quick thought on this - the offerings to Jehovah were made primarily by the people. They would go and grow their produce and raise their animals and from that out of their good things they would bring their offerings to the temple. The priest would offer them up then take a meal with the people.
The arrangement then was the people brought the offerings and the priests function was to ensure that there were no defects. The priests did not provide the food, the people did.
The system we have been operating under has been focused on the priests, in the form of "the faithful and discreet slave" providing the food. There is no way for the people to put up their offerings except by means of bible studies. But even then that is only perpetuating the existing feeding program.
Here, we are endeavouring to get back to the people offering up their sacrifices of praise and worship in spirit and truth. The function of the priests (seed) is to ensure the appropriate environment of righteousness is established so that it can be said:
"by means of your seed the nations of the earth will bless themselves" - Gen 22:18.
Forum 
and I may not have expressed my thoughts very well. It also touches on many other related issues and understandings. Perhaps some may also think it's not a very important subject. But in the light of Acts 19:1-5 and 1 Pet 3:21 I think the subject of proper baptism is maybe an important one to consider. It certainly has given me cause for much consideration, and still does.