Is JW Baptism the Only Valid Baptism?

by Cold Steel 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    What is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s view on baptism? Is it absolutely essential that one be baptized to gain eternal life in God’s Kingdom?

    And what is the policy on who may baptize? I understand that every baptized member of the Society is an ordained minister. But the local authorities keep a short leash on what a minister can or cannot do. The Society declares it is not a church, but if I’m a baptized Jehovah's Witness, what happens if I baptize someone who doesn’t want to be affiliated with a church or organization? Will Jehovah recognize that baptism or will he ignore it because it was not done according to the dictates of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?

    Shortly before his ascension, Jesus spoke to Peter, the chief apostle:

    “And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Matthew 16:19).

    These keys of authority were given to Peter by Jesus, most likely in a hands to head ordination. One could thus surmise that Peter controlled those who acted in God’s name. If someone baptized someone and was not authorized by Peter, that baptism would not be recognized in heaven. And if Peter, or those he authorized, disfellowshiped (or cut off) members in disciplinary actions, the bonds of baptism could be loosed.

    This makes sense if the Lord is going to maintain a church, and the Lord told Peter that upon the “rock” of revelation, he would “build my church.” Thus, if Peter was so authorized, then how did this authorization land in the laps of Charles T. Russell or Joseph Rutherford? And how did the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society receive these keys?

    This is one thing that no Jehovah's Witness has ever been able to explain to me. If the Governing Body has these keys, then yes, they can mete out the authority to baptize. They also can mete out the authority to disfellowship. When a person is baptized, it will be recognized in Heaven, and when they’re cut off, that person is cut off in Heaven.

    But if they don’t have the said Keys of the Kingdom, then what is there to fear when they disfellowship someone? And can they tell you who you can and can’t baptize?

    I realize that few people on this site believe that the Governing Body has any dispensational authority; however, what would be the Society’s position on this issue? And if members really do have the authority, as “ordained ministers,” to baptize, wouldn’t it be great to be able to baptize their children and other family members? Instead, baptisms tend to be done en masse. Biblically, people could receive baptism without having to wait for a conference or semi-annual meeting.

    Who are these people doing the baptisms? Are they rank and file members,
    elders or other office holders? If a baptized father wanted to baptize his children,
    would he be allowed to do so? What if one was in Israel and wanted his best friend,
    a baptized member, to baptize him in the Jordan River? Would it be permitted?



    .

  • Julia Orwell
    Julia Orwell

    Elders. No one special really. They have no personal authority to baptise ie they can't come to your house and baptise you in your swimming pool for instance, without the authority of the organisation. A baptised father could not baptise his children as the whole thing has to go through the body of elders and then you get dunked at an assembly. Baptism is a very public thing for JWs, and you have to prearrange to do it. You can't just show up at the assembly and join in the line. You have to go through questions with the elders and then they approve you. It's all very bureaucratic.

    According to JWs only a baptism done by JWs with approval of the elders considered legit. It annuls any other baptisms you may have had such as in my case I was baptised Anglican as a baby. Since JWs believe they are the only true religion, any other baptism is not considered legitimate. However, if I were to get baptised with another church, such as as a born again or Mormon, that would annul my JW baptism I think, as I would be considered 'apostate' and disassociating myself. Maybe someone else, someone who has been an elder, can elaborate on this more.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    “And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Matthew 16:19).

    So let me get this straight , whatever sinfull man decides what is right on earth is automatically accepted in heaven ? And whatever shall be loosed on earth by imperfect humans is automatically loosed in heaven ? Doesnt that sound a bit arse about ? or am I missing something here.

    I`m sorry if thats a bit off topic

    Getting back on topic : Previous baptisms in christendom didnt need to be rescinded by the recpients because these were considered null and void by the society.So it follows that an ex jw getting baptised by another religion would not have to formally cut off ties with the witnesses .

    And witnesses getting baptised is only authourised by designated brothers at specified assemblys such as cicuit , district ,national or international assemblys.

    smiddy

  • Laika
    Laika

    JWs believe baptism is essential for the anointed. Not necessarily for the great crowd, but they would question the salvation of someone who refused to do it.

    Cold Steel, to be honest I don't quite understand where you're going with the rest of your post. Is there a Mormon angle to this that I've missed? How do the Mormons understand baptism and authority?

  • blondie
    blondie

    *** w12 3/15 p. 14 par. 23 Help People to “Awake From Sleep” ***

    Helping people to wake up from spiritual sleep is an art and requires persistent effort. Yet, meek people are still responding to our efforts to awaken them. On average, over 20,000 people each month get baptized as Witnesses of Jehovah.

    *** w11 6/15 p. 3 Should Youths Get Baptized? ***

    Should Youths Get Baptized?

    “I AM so happy that my daughter is now a servant of Jehovah, and I know that she is happy too,” said Carlos, a Christian father in the Philippines. A father from Greece wrote: “My wife and I are delighted that our three children were baptized as Jehovah’s Witnesses during their adolescence. They are making spiritual progress and are happy about serving Jehovah.”

    Christian parents have reason to be overjoyed when their children get baptized, but sometimes the joy is accompanied by uneasiness. “I was very happy and very anxious,” said one mother. Why the mixed emotions? “I understood that my son was now fully accountable to Jehovah.”

    Serving Jehovah as one of his baptized Witnesses is a goal that all young ones should have.

    *** w89 1/15 p. 13 par. 18 What Prevents You From Getting Baptized? ***

    Faith in the ransom is emphasized for baptismal candidates, for the first of two questions the speaker asks them is: “On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, have you repented of your sins and dedicated yourself to Jehovah to do his will?” Only if the individual answers in the affirmative and also understands that his dedication and baptism identify him as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization can he acceptably undergo water immersion.

    *** w89 1/15 p. 20 How Baptism Can Save Us ***

    Baptism Can Save Us

    20

    By our works, we can show that “we belong to Jehovah.” Why, salvation depends on working faithfully as his dedicated slaves! (Romans 6:20-23; 14:7, 8) In ancient times, slaves were often marked on the forehead. By the preaching work today, the antitypical ‘man clothed in linen’—the remnant of Jesus’ anointed followers—is ‘marking’ those who will survive the end of this system. In this work the anointed are assisted by their associates, the “other sheep.” (Ezekiel 9:1-7; John 10:16) And what is the “mark”? It is the evidence that we are dedicated to Jehovah and are Jesus’ baptized disciples who have a Christlike personality.

    21

    Especially now is it vital that we have the “mark” and retain it, for we are deep into “the time of the end.” (Daniel 12:4) To be saved we must ‘endure to the end’ of our present life or of this system. (Matthew 24:13) Only if we thus remain faithful as witnesses of Jehovah will baptism save us.

    *** w82 2/15 p. 31 par. 18 “What Prevents Me from Getting Baptized?” ***

    Just ahead the separating of the “sheep” from the “goats” will come to a conclusion. None will be left on middle ground when God brings the “great tribulation” to sweep away “those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” (Matthew 25:31-46; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9) Only those ‘marked’ for salvation will survive into his new order. (Revelation 7:3, 4, 9, 14; Ezekiel 9:2-6) How happy will be those who have submitted to this ‘marking’ for survival because of being accepted into a dedicated relationship with Jehovah God, as symbolized by water baptism, and continuing in integrity on the narrow road that leads to life!—Matthew 7:13, 14.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Thank you all for your contributions to this thread. And especially you, Blondie.

    Julia Orwell: Since JWs believe they are the only true religion, any other baptism is not considered legitimate. However, if I were to get baptised with another church...that would annul my JW baptism I think, as I would be considered 'apostate' and disassociating myself.

    Yes, so baptisms by “apostate” Christians have no valid authority. But what if a person were baptized by a non-denominational Christian, someone who said, “We have no established doctrine or creeds, but we will baptize you by immersion in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”? My point is, what makes the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they hold the “keys” to baptize, and that no one else may do it? Doesn’t it stand to reason that this sort of authority must come from God? And if so, how did it get from God to Pastor Russell, and from him to his successors? As far as I can ascertain, there are no hands-on-head ordinations within the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and the reason is most telling. Ordination implies that one have heavenly, ministerial authority which can be passed on, and despite all the claims and counterclaims within the Society, the leadership must know that it doesn’t have this authority.

    When one is baptized, we’re told, he or she becomes an “ordained” minister in God’s earthly kingdom. Whoa! Where did that come from? I’d like to see the references for that, as I’ve never seen that even remotely mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments.

    Smiddy: So let me get this straight, whatever sinful man decides what is right on earth is automatically accepted in heaven? And whatever shall be loosed on earth by imperfect humans is automatically loosed in heaven? Doesn’t that sound a bit arse about? Or am I missing something here?

    I think so, Smiddy. In the scriptures, the Lord has always worked through sinful men who have served as prophets, and through their words, which have been passed on through written languages. When speaking of the office of high priest, the Lord specifically said that “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (See Hebrews 5:4)

    Very well, but how was Aaron chosen? Well, take a break and check out Exodus 28 and you tell me. Within all the instructions in that chapter, two things the apostle Paul referred to stand out. First was the calling, which came through Moses, who had the keys of authority. “And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office....” The second was the ordination: “...and [thou[ shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.” The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has sought neither in establishing its legitimacy. When one becomes an elder, it’s done through a hand shake. You go into a room, you’re informed that you’ve been chosen to be an elder, you shake hands and walk out an elder. I would dearly love to see what the apostles Peter and Paul would think of such a procedure.

    Laika: JWs believe baptism is essential for the anointed. Not necessarily for the great crowd, but they would question the salvation of someone who refused to do it.

    Again, a doctrine in search of a reference. I don’t often read the Watchtower, but from my reading of the New Testament, baptism is the doorway to salvation. “He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” the Lord said. Those who “believe not” (and, consequently, are not baptized) shall be damned.”

    Cold Steel, to be honest I don't quite understand where you're going with the rest of your post. Is there a Mormon angle to this that I've missed? How do the Mormons understand baptism and authority?

    As far a I know, Laika, only two Christian faiths, or sects, believe in the necessity of the Keys of the Kingdom. One is the Catholic Church, which claims to have the keys by virtue of having them handed down from one pope to the next since the days of Christ. The other is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which claims the keys were restored to the earth through heavenly messengers, specifically, Peter, James and John.

    Evangelical and other Protestant movements, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, say the keys are not necessary. This has always puzzled me. Why would Jesus make the statement about the keys if they weren’t necessary? Not to get too far off track, many churches consider themselves, together, to be the “body of Christ.” So it matters not who has the keys as if you’re sincere in your belief in Christ, you’re already bound to Christ in Heaven. (And BTW, you can order a ministerial certificate off the Internet which will allow you to start your own church; and it’s signed by someone else who doesn’t have the keys of authority).

    My point is one of administration. How can any sect even claim to constitute Jehovah’s Kingdom on Earth if it lacks these keys? If it baptizes, and their baptisms are not recognized as “bound” in Heaven, and if it disfellowships (excommunicates) a member and doesn’t have the keys of loosing in Heaven or Earth, then why fear being disfellowshiped? To me, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is very cagey about the way it describes its own power and authority, which is to say, who needs it? Again, that’s why there are no callings and no ordinations in the Outfit. It’s why people can become an elder with a handshake. What happened to the ancient church? How can the Governing Body claim authority which it clearly doesn’t have, and not have keys it claims it doesn’t need, but which were specifically relegated to the ancient church? And since the Governing Body is fond of the metaphor of the faithful and wise servant (or faithful and discreet slave) who is appointed to run the “household of God” and guides members in its directing of doctrines and policies, administers spiritual meat and oversees ordinances of baptism, it’s not unfair to ask them about his master’s keys. For if he doesn’t have them, he is a false claimant who is, actually, a thief and a robber in the master’s house.

    To bind in Heaven and Earth is a power necessary for baptisms, for the calling and ordination of church officers like bishops, elders, deacons, teachers, priests, apostles and so forth (which the ancient church had but are conspicuously missing in the WTBTS). That’s why I find it difficult to understand as it relates to baptism.

    .

    The Keys of the Kingdom was a popular topic for art and can be found in
    paintings and statues. Though the keys weren't actually keys, they were
    keys of authority. If they are unnecessary to the governance of the church,
    why did Jesus refer to them? Yet Protestants (including the WTBTS) see
    no reason to possess them; they simply were spiritual relics from a bygone
    age...nothing more. Yet, according to Jesus, they had the power to bind
    both in Heaven and on Earth.

    .

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    There are some interesting comments about Matthew 16:19 in the NICNT-Matthew commentary (R. T. France, pp. 625-27):

    [Start quote]

    19. A change in metaphor now highlights the responsible role Peter will play in the development of this new ekklesia. Taking up the imagery of Isa. 22:20-22, Jesus declares Peter to be the steward (the chief administrative officer) in the kingdom of heaven [which France understands to refer to "God's rulership", rather than a "government" per se; an abstract noun rather than a concrete one. - Bobcat], who will hold the keys, so that, like Eliakim, the new steward (cf. Isa. 22:15) in the kingdom of David, "he will open, and no one shall shut; he will shut, and no one shall open." The steward is not the owner. He has both authority (over the rest of the household) and responsibility (to his master to administer the affairs of the house properly). The keys are those of the storehouses, to enable him to make appropriate provision for the household, not those of the outer gate, to control admission. The traditional portrayal of Peter as porter at the pearly gates depends on misunderstanding "the kingdom of heaven" here as a designation of the afterlife rather than denoting God's rule among his people on earth.

    The metaphor of "tying up" and "untying" also speaks of administrative authority. The terms are used in rabbinic literature for declaring what is and is not permitted. When the same commission is given to the whole disciple group in 18:18, it will be specifically in the context of dealing with sin within the community. Such authority to declare what is and is not permissible will of course have personal consequences for the person judged to have sinned, but it is the prior judgment in principle which is the focus of the "tying" metaphor, and there, as here, the objects of both verbs will be expressed in the neuter, not the masculine; it is things, issues, which are being tied or untied, not people as such. The historical role of Peter in Acts well illustrates the metaphor, as it was to him that the responsibility fell of declaring that gentiles might be accepted as members of the new ekklesia (Acts 10:1 - 11:18), though of course the exercise of his disciplinary authority could also have dire personal consequences for those who stepped over the mark (Acts 5:1-11; cf Acts 8:20-24). Peter's personal authority remained, however, that of the first among equals, and the extension of this commission to the rest of the disciples in 18:18 will ensure that he is kept in his place [cf. Gal 2:11-14 - Bobcat].

    The heavenly "endorsement" of Peter's decisions is expressed (both here and in 18:18, twice in each verse) in the unusual syntax of future perfect passive verbs, "will have been tied up," "will have been untied." The construction is sufficiently unusual and indeed awkward in Greek to draw attention. . . It seems likely, therefore, that these repeated future perfects are there for a reason. They change the sequence of actions. . . with future perfects the impression is that when Peter makes his decision it will be found to have been already made in heaven, making him not the initiator of new directions for the church, but the faithful steward of God's prior decisions. In this syntactical form the saying becomes a promise not of divine endorsement, but of divine guidance to enable Peter to decide in accordance with God's already determined purpose.

    [End quote. Material in brackets was Bobcat's for clarification.]

    Note that, as far as personal entry (into the Christian community) is concerned, God desires 'all to be saved' (1 Tim 2:4), and baptism, as a ritual for entry into the Christian community, was already determined by Jesus (Mt 28:18-20). The commentary above footnotes the fact that "keys" (plural) is more suited for storehouses than for an admission gate. And the example on which Matthew 16:19 is based, Eliakim of Isaiah 22, he had no say about entry into the Israelite community. That was already established in the Law Code. Even so, some personal conduct limitations are indicated for entry into the New Covenant community (compare Rev 21:27; 22:15).

    The "faithful steward" parable (Lk 12:42-48; Mt 24:45-51), as in Mt 16:19, may have had its underlying basis on the steward account in Isaiah 22. Luke 12:48 applies it to "all" or "everyone" "to whom much was given" and "put in charge of much." (Compare with Peter's question in Luke 12:41.) That leaves a basis for its application on a much wider scale than just a handful of men some 20 centuries after the parable was given.

    The baptism ritual that is added by the WT Society (to be done at large assemblies, the two vows, etc), all of this is best understood as providing the WT with legal leverage over the person being baptised. This is why non-WT baptisms are illegitimate as far as the WT is concerned. See my post # 770 on this thread for a number of links to comments on baptism. See my post # 1025 for comments about "re-baptism" on this thread.

    And see Isaiah's comments about "Shebna" in Isa. 22:15-19, who was the "steward" prior to Eliakim, and see if you notice any similarities between him and the current GB.

  • fiddler
    fiddler

    As far as the JW and Watchtower society point of view goes, THEIR baptism is the ONLY baptism,

    I had an interesting conversation just a week ago with a Christian friend and I was just telling her how the JW's have baptismal questions that one answers before getting dunked. I mentioned how the questions I answered so many years ago were basically affirming my dedication to God and Jesus but that now the person getting baptized as a JW must also confirm their complete loyalty to the Watchtower organization! My friends response was that I was at least BAPTIZED. To her it didn't matter what the religion as long as God and Christ were part of the dedication. I didn't tell her that to the average JW she was still an unbaptized heathen in their eyes..........thought it best to get on with another subject. Still, I found her response interesting.

  • Captain Obvious
    Captain Obvious

    Yeah to a JW no other baptism is legit. In their defense, though.... They only baptize people who are alive!

  • Laika
    Laika

    Hi Cold Steel:

    Again, a doctrine in search of a reference. I don’t often read the Watchtower, but from my reading of the New Testament, baptism is the doorway to salvation. “He who believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” the Lord said. Those who “believe not” (and, consequently, are not baptized) shall be damned.”

    This could be a problem for the evangelicals (baptism is only a symbol!?) but less so for the JWs. They think the scripture you quoted is a later edition and has been removed from their recently revised New World Translation.

    How they explain this: Jesus said you must be born again of water and spirit to enter the Kingdom of heaven. Only the anointed go to heaven, and only the anointed are born again, so all anointed must be baptised. However, there are many who are saved who are not baptised, such as the pre-Jesus faithful Israelites and the thief on the cross (stake!) so this must mean baptism is not a requirement for the non-anointed. Thus Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the thief etc... are all going to live on the Paradise Earth.

    The real question, imo, is why non-anointed JWs are required to do baptism but not allowed to do communion, since the purpose of each sacrament seems to be the same to me.

    and if it disfellowships (excommunicates) a member and doesn’t have the keys of loosing in Heaven or Earth, then why fear being disfellowshiped?

    Well, I think we tend to fear disfellowshipping because our JW friends and family believe in the authority of the elders and act on it with shunning, not because we believe in their authority. However, JWs do apply Matthew 18:18 to disfellowshipping and reinstatement, and claim Jehovah supports the decisions of the elders based on this text. (They don't apply it to baptisms as far as I'm aware)

    Hope this helps! Can I ask some questions now please?

    If Mormons still have apostles do they have confession and absolution (based on John 20:23)? Am I right in saying mormons believe Peter, James and John are still alive and wandering the Earth or is this is a myth like the 'magic' underwear? And if so, how come your leaders haven't included them in the Mormon group of 12 apostles?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit