ALL current JWs: Please give feedback here or by PM

AuldSoul

Okay, I have been harping on this issue for some time. I think I have this thing refined enough that I can communicate it succinctly. I want as much feedback as possible. PM me if you want to preserve your anonimity. I need to know whether there are any holes in this? Is there ANY Scriptural argument that can succeed against this?

Baptism according to the Bible: Acts 2:38; 3:19 shows that baptism requires repentance and conversion.

Acts 2 shows 3,000 baptized in one day.

Acts 8 shows the Ethiopian eunuch baptized after learning about Jesus.

Acts 10 shows a Roman army officer and his family baptized immediately after receiving the Holy Ghost while Peter spoke less than 200 words to them.

Acts 16 shows Lydia and her household baptized after listening to the disciples one morning.

Acts 16 shows a Philippian jailer who had not formerly believed in God baptized, along with his family, after one late night/early morning conversation with Paul and Silas.

Except for repentance and conversion, the baptismal prerequisites found in chapter 18 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach? are not only lacking in Scriptural support, the Scriptures flatly disprove them as false teachings and requirements that are not from God, by clearly demonstrating instances of Christian baptism that did not require those steps.

Since these requirements are not Scriptural, what is their basis? Did the writer of the book even attempt to find Scriptural proof that these are requirements of God as qualification steps for Christian baptism? If so, why were they included when no Scriptural support was discovered, unless it was in an outright attempt to deceive Bible students and JWs into believing the Bible teaches them as pre-baptismal requirements?

In the book Reasoning From the Scriptures, on pages 283 and 284 we find a list that purports to answer the question: "How can Jehovah’s visible organization in our day be identified?" Obviously, it is intended that the list applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. However, due to the contents of chapter 18 of the new primary teaching aid they are actually excluded from consideration by the third criterion.

The third criterion reads: "It adheres closely to God’s inspired Word, basing all its teachings and standards of conduct on the Bible.—2 Tim. 3:16, 17."

I think we have proven, Jehovah's Witnesses do not base all their teachings on the Bible. In which case, by their own published criteria, they are NOT Jehovah's visible organization.

Please give feedback. I need someone to try VERY HARD to destroy this line of reasoning.

AudeSapere

Dear Auld Soul -

Has anyone successfully destroyed your line of reasoning on anything yet?

Most Respectfully,

-Aude.

AuldSoul

AudeSapere,

Has anyone successfully destroyed your line of reasoning on anything yet?

Yes. Several times here.

Six of nine has, although he kindly reserved the ultimate devastation (which I'd hoped to avoid through a gentler dismantling of my reasoning) for a PM exchange. Leolaia, Narkissos and peaceful pete have done their share of major modifcations on my perspectives on certain issues, too. Although, I don't think any of them ever intend destroying my lines of reasoning on this forum, only elucidating my arguments from ignorance. Newborn ex-JWs are ignorant of a great many things.

As always, I just smile politely and say, "Thank you. May I have another?"

My hope, though, is to develop several extremely refined lines of reasoning that require Scriptural defense from JWs where there is no Scriptural defense to be found, no wiggle room, no chance of escape through a secret escape hatch. I believe I have achieved success, in this case. The only way to find out for sure is to invite others to attack the thing.

This one is not like Satan raising a Scripture for Jesus to consider. In this case, there is no rebuttal Scripture that I can find that would ease their doctrinal constraint. In this case, either they accept the Scriptures and reject the lie their organization currently promotes as truth, or they reject the Scriptures and accept the organizational lie. I can't find a middle ground on the point, and I have had several others try to find one (just in case I had a blind spot). Now I am opening it up to every JW here to TRY and find the Scriptural gray area that allows for these additional requirements.

If any JW teaches a student from chapter 18 of What Does the Bible Really Teach?, then that JW becomes guilty of teaching lies as though they were truth from God. Even if they don't know what they are doing, they are spreading known lies on behalf of the organization that published the book. It was unethical of the organization to lyingly require these steps as steps the Bible teaches for Christian baptism. It was unethical of the organization to require JWs to spread the steps as requirements of God.

If any JW reads this thread and cannot defend the teaching Scripturally, they will be knowingly supporting lies if they teach this doctrine or condoning the teaching of lies if they sit idly by while others teach this doctrine. For that reason, I certainly hope SOMEONE tries very hard to argue another Scriptural point of view regarding these requirements.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

AuldSoul

bttt, I need some help here.

SirNose586

Let's see if I can play Devil's advocate here...

Your goal is to disprove that you need to have (some) knowledge, that you must associate with the congregation, and that you must preach, all before getting baptized, right?

Now, in the case of the 3,000 baptized, the Ethopian, and Lydia, they were either Jews or proselyte Jews. Therefore a dub could argue in their case that they had already had a basic knowledge of scripture, and that they associated with the Jews. But the need for this becomes undone by the cases of the jailer and the centurion. The dub in this case will probably argue that the congregation was young, and therefore there was a flexibility with the rules. I don't know how they would support this scripturally.

The cases of the jailer and the centurion destroy any uniform pattern of taking in knowledge (based on their faulty translation of John 17:3), association with the Christian congregation, and preaching before baptism. There is no proof that either person did these things.

I was reading a bit about qualifications...specifically, whom was qualified to teach. The overall theme was that the Holy Spirit would make itself manifest in those who were qualified to teach. The only scripture I can see to support having knowledge in order to be qualified to teach (unbaptised publisher) would be 2 Timothy 2:2, wherein Paul says that if Timothy related to faithful men what Timothy heard from him, these faithful men in turn would be qualified to teach. These faithful men were already baptised, but the person might use this scripture anyway.

However, all of 1 Corinthians 2 basically destoys any claim that you need to be examined before baptism.

The baptism is the gateway, not the goal. You get baptised, then you preach. Paul was writing to baptised persons when he exhorted them to get rid of their unclean practices (1 Corinthians 6:9,10, Galatians 5:19-21). But dubs will apply these words to unbaptised people anyway.

I'll look into the Organization book to see what support they give for the Questions for Baptismal Candidates.

skyking

This is the societies line of thinking. I know, I went down this path once before. Write the Society you will get a simple reply back stating the scriptures you are referring too baptized onto God anointed followers. Today we are baptizing onto God the Great crowd. That is their reply so I hope this is want you were wanting.

Thats that in a NUT shell. Stupid is what their thinking is.

Arthur

I'm sure that many of us could effectively play "devil's advocate" here. I thought of a few points to bring up, one of them being the "great crowd" point that skyking made.

But, it would be much better if the debate was between AuldSoul and an actual JW apologist; not one of us. A game of devil's advocate between apostates is rather dry and phony; like one of those number 4 talks on the school.

For the benefit of JW lurkers, it would be much better for a real apologist to enter the debate. I can think of a few of them without mentioning any names. However, I seriously doubt that they will attempt to do so. The ones that I am thinking of cannot effectively debate these matters unless they are able to throw around a lot of childish insults and sarcasm. They wouldn't be able to get away with that here.

slimboyfat

Didn't that wise old man Franz once say that because we live in the harvest time different rules apply.

Who ever said that the biblical way of doing things was to be found in the Bible anyway?

Slim

Arthur

Didn't that wise old man Franz once say that because we live in the harvest time different rules apply.

Well then, that "wise old man" man was a fool. An organization that touts itself as the only religion that adheres exclusively to what the Bible teaches cannot "go beyond what is written". If they do so; they can no longer hold onto the claim that all of their teachings are scriptural. They can try to use the "new light" trick; but if the "new light" does not adhere to the scriptures; then their claims to exclusivity are voided.

AuldSoul

Arthur: They can try to use the "new light" trick...

You worded that correctly. Look up the definition for "deceit" and you will see what I mean. Twisting and perverting Proverbs 4:18 out of context and into a prophecy for our day as a means to explain the introduction new doctrine is a horrible deceit. JWs aren't the only religion that does it, but that doesn't make it okay in their case.

Galatians 1:6-9 tears their "new light" doctrine to shreds; makes confetti out of it.

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

ALL current JWs: Please give feedback here or by PM

Share this