by AuldSoul 61 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This was last raised to the top November 22. I am still waiting to see whether any active JW, ex-JW apologist for JWism, JW elder, or JW interested person can explain why the teachings contained in chapter 18 of the publication What Does the Bible Really Teach? are horribly inconsistent with what the Bible really teaches about baptism.
Can anyone out there explain this?
Bump ... can anyone present the JW arguments that counter this reasoning?
I have been bumping this since August.
Can NO active JW defend their religion's baptismal requirements by using the Bible?
I didn't think so, but I suppose the odds are pretty heavily against this thread somehow missing the attention of every single active JW on the forum. I notice some who were elders have even posted here that they don't believe this can be answered.
The basic premise is: The teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding requirements for baptism cannot be supported by the Scriptures. Shall I consider the matter proved?
If so, please understand that this completely eliminates Jehovah's Witnesses as a possible organization for God to be using right now. If you don't believe me, check the topic "Organization" in the book Reasoning From the Scriptures and look for the subtopic regarding how to identify the organization God is using.
Examine point #3, and think carefully about whether you can support the teachings of your religion by using the Bible. If not, you have just proved to yourself what most of the posters on this forum already know: Jehovah's Witnesses are not the organization God is using. According to their own published standards.
If you believe you can support all their teachings Scripturally, prove it. Support their requirements for baptism Scripturally.
If these requirements are unscriptural, why have they been added to the Christian burden? (Galatians 1:6-9) I say the organization that added these is accursed. I have Scriptural backing for saying so. If you say I am wrong, where is your Scriptural backing? Even Satan could use Scripture to demonstrate his point. Can you?
AuldSoul,
I've been thinking about this since your raised the point and we went over the chapter in the CBS.
You said:
Consider: Is there any Scripture that shows this step is required by God? If it is not required by God but it is required by Jehovah's Witnesses (specifically by the Governing Body), then who is it that actually requires dedication?
That is it in a nutshell. I think you've proved to a reasonable degree (at least to me) that the WTS has in fact added to scripture when dealing with the baptism requirements. Why doesn't this cause more issues with current JWs? I think because if you are convinced (as both of us once were) that JWs are Gods chosen people and the GB/FDS is Gods channel on earth today, then you don't have a problem with them adding additional requirements. Why? Because, Jehovah must have directed them to do so. That would be just fine with me if the GB/FDS could actually prove that they have Holy Spirit. Paul, Peter, the other apostles and leaders of the early Christians could prove they had Holy Spirit by performing miracles.
The only "miracle" they can point to is the legal manuvering that got Rutherford and the other WTS directors out of prison in 1919. Now, compare that prison release with Paul's release and conversion of the jailer. Hmm, slightly different senario right? I would expect that Jesus selecting a group of individuals to represent him on earth would be a much grander event or at least on par with the 1st Century events.
Even the outpouring of Holy Spirit at Pentacost 33 CE. Why wasn't there something similar reported after Jesus allegedly inspected his "house" or all organizations claiming to be Christian and chose the Bible Students? Wouldn't the prophsey in Joel have a second application that coordinates with this second coming? Seems to me it would.
I really think that some JWs could conceed the fact that the WTS has added to the scriptures regarding numerous things, including baptism, yet still not be bothered that much by it because of the claim that they are God's chosen ones.
That's why my recent discussions with my wife have been surrounding 607. That date being off and the society misrepresenting secular sources they say support 607 is the lynchpin to JW doctrine. Pull that out and show the deciet, I think the whole thing falls apart. Then, once free, I'm planning on studying all these doctrines to see if ANY of them hold water. My guess is that most do not.
Great subject and I love your questions to consider.
I posted this thread on August 6, 2006. No JW has (to date) Scripturally defended the teachings found in this chapter. I don't think any JW can.
Would someone like to prove me wrong?
Can ANY Jehovah's Witness demonstrate that my reasoning on the matter of prebaptismal requirements is Scripturally in error?
BTT
Thanks for the bump, buddy!
We are nearing the one year mark and no JW has yet provided ANY Scriptural basis for requiring that people preach before baptism, much less for any of the other requirements besides repentance and conversion.
Anyone? Anyone?
I've been doing a lot of reading on this lately.
I have even broke out my insight books, reasoning, what does the bible teach books to brush up on the WTS arguments. OMG they are just so weak.
Basically they take examples from obviously baptized individuals and apply it to non-baptized people. Or they don't even back it up with scriptures; they just use circular logic to make is a must-do for baptism.
Like attending meetings. Hebrews says we shouldn't neglect meeting together and they take that to mean when/how/where/what/who and that you must do it to qualify for baptism - how else could you say you learned about God? Certainly not from prayer and the HS.
btt
