Back in the 80's "unbaptized publishers" were called "approved associates" and it was felt they could be "disassociated" (an unofficial term used by many JWs) and treated the same as DF'd baptized JWs. Then they changed that because the person had not been baptized and thus had not officially made a commitment to serve God. I think the WTS had been sued by some of these unbaptized ones and Legal told them to change the terms and process.
***
w89 2/15 p. 29 Questions From ReadersDoes the material on being approved by God mean that Christians may speak to one who once was considered an "approved associate" but later, because of wrongdoing, was to be avoided?
Yes, it does. The Watchtower of November 15, 1988, showed why it is Scriptural to adjust our view of an unbaptized person who shares in the public ministry with Jehovah?s Witnesses. Formerly, such a person was termed an "approved associate." If he thereafter unrepentantly broke God?s laws, the congregation was alerted, and the members would then avoid association and conversation with him.
As the recent material showed, the Bible requires that such disciplinary action be taken in the case of baptized persons who are unrepentant wrongdoers. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; 2 John 9-11) Yet, the accountability of an unbaptized person who pursues wrongdoing is not the same as that of one who is baptized. (Luke 12:48) He has not been baptized and thus has not become approved in God?s sight, so disfellowshipping is not appropriate in his case. Basically, he is now a worldly person and can be dealt with accordingly.
What, then, of one who was formerly termed an "approved associate" but who is no longer qualified for the public ministry because of his wrong course? Since he is not disfellowshipped, he should be treated as the person of the world that he is. Of course, the November 15 Watchtower advised on page 19 that due caution must be exercised by loyal Christians. These realize that the unbaptized person may well have shared in wrongdoing despite his having knowledge of God?s requirements. Mature Christians must be careful about socializing with such an individual. If questions arise as to the extent of contact that may be had with him, most of these can be resolved by following godly counsel. We can reflect on counsel such as that found at 1 Corinthians 15:33 and Proverbs 13:20 and ask ourselves: ?What association would I properly have with a person of the world who is not living by Christian standards?? If the elders see that a worldly person of this sort poses any threat, they can privately offer warning counsel to those in the congregation who seem to be endangered.
In time, an unbaptized person who had been an "approved associate" may give reasonable evidence of repentance, and he may desire to have a Bible study again. (Acts 26:20) He may speak to the elders of the congregation where he now attends, who, if it seems advisable, will arrange for him to have a Bible study. This will apply also if in the future someone is disqualified as an unbaptized publisher and later shows repentance. Usually, he ought to speak to the two elders who dealt with his wrongdoing or the two others whom the body of elders chose to review the matter if he requested that.
Appropriately, The Watchtower explained that it is somewhat different in the case of parents caring for minor children in the home?those legally dependent minors for whom they are responsible to provide material support. (Ephesians 6:1-4) The Scriptures lay on the parents the obligation to instruct and guide their children. So the parents (or believing parent) may choose to conduct a private Bible study with the erring minor or to include him in the family?s program of Bible study and discussion.
While the recent Watchtower material calls for adjustment in our thinking and dealings, it is done in line with the Scriptures that are beneficial "for disciplining in righteousness."?2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
***
w88 11/15 Helping Others to Worship God ***Previously, an unbaptized person who qualified to share in the field ministry was termed an "approved associate." However, "unbaptized publisher" is a more accurate designation, especially in view of the Biblical indication that God?s approval results from a valid dedication and Christian baptism.
Previously, unbaptized ones who unrepentantly sinned were completely avoided. While, as adjusted above, this is not required, the counsel at 1 Corinthians 15:33 should still be observed.
ORGANIZED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MINISTRY (1983) p 148-9
What of nonbaptized individuals who have been recognized as approved associates...but who have now become involved in serious wrongdoing? They should be dealt with in a way similar to that of baptized Witnesses with the exception that, not being recognized members of the congregation, they could not be formally expelled therefrom...If a nonbaptized wrongdoer is still unrepentant after a judicial committee has met with him...it becomes necessary to inform the congregation. A brief announcement is made that the person is no longer recognzed as an approved associate. The congregation will then view the wrongdoer as they would view one who has been disfellowshipped.
As to invalid baptisms or being rebaptized, the following is what the WTS has said starting for the oldest to the newest comments:
**
w58 8/1 p. 475 Baptism ***Any baptism other than a proper one performed by a dedicated person would be invalid. Also, it would be invalid if the individual did not have a proper understanding at the time of his dedication. This is illustrated to us by Paul when he went to Ephesus and found certain learners. He asked them: "Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?" "They said to him: ?Why, we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit.? And he said: ?In what, then, were you baptized?? They said: ?In John?s baptism.? Paul said: ?John baptized with the baptism of those repenting, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.? On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began . . . prophesying." This demonstrates to us that even John?s baptism did not bring the holy spirit upon an individual, this fact showing the importance and necessity of being baptized in the name of the one coming after John, that is, Jesus. As an example, it shows that those sharing in John?s baptism after Pentecost A.D. 33 of necessity had to repeat the baptism in order to receive the holy spirit.?Acts 19:1-7.
***
w60 3/1 pp. 159-160 Questions from Readers ?
What should a congregation committee do in the case of one who has committed acts deserving being put on probation or disfellowshiped and who now claims that in the light of what The Watchtower, August 1, 1958, had to say about valid and invalid baptisms, his baptism was not a valid one?We well know that Christendom professes to be Jehovah?s organization and in the new covenant with him. It has never renounced that relationship, although it is a false claim and pretense. Yet because of the appearance that Christendom puts on before the world and the demands that it makes according to its boastful claims, Jehovah God will judge Christendom just the same as if she were in actual covenant relationship with him. She will be judged unfaithful and punished accordingly because she has acted hypocritically and brought reproach upon his name.
Likewise, if an individual who has made a profession of dedication to God through Christ and after the baptismal talk submits to water baptism and then continues to associate with the congregation, even though spasmodically, claiming to be a dedicated, baptized member of the congregation and never renouncing that relationship with the congregation, then that individual has to be judged by the congregation according to the appearance of things that is being offered by this person.
The congregation credits the individual with honesty and with having intelligently entered into a full membership in the congregation by virtue of dedication and baptism. The congregation is not God, who is able to read the heart, nor does it have supernatural gifts as did Peter and other apostles so as to know whether the individual is earnest and sincere and is not dishonest and hypocritical. If the individual permits himself to be accepted by the congregation upon the basis of the congregation?s own understanding and view of the matter, then this individual subjects himself to be judged and dealt with according to the standards that the congregation owns up to as found in the Word of God.
If, after the individual commits a wrong that deserves disfellowshiping, the individual first then disclaims having actually been what he has all along pretended to be and what he has let the congregation think he is, then he certainly is trying to take advantage of the congregation and is trying to crawl out from underneath responsibility and due consequences for his acts. He cannot now properly claim that he was not really dedicated and that his baptism was all a mistake and that in reality he never was a member of the congregation and of the New World society and so cannot be chastened by or expelled from it.
This particularly follows in the case of such a one?s making a confession. If inside himself he did not count himself a member of the congregation, then why make a confession to the congregation in the first place? An undedicated, unbaptized person is not obliged to confess all his sins and wickedness that he committed before dedication to the congregation and ask their forgiveness. All that is necessary is that he clean up his life, then make a dedication and act in harmony with that dedication and present himself for baptism.
But whether confessing or not, when a person is found guilty of misconduct he must be dealt with according to the appearance he gave those of the New World society and must therefore be put on probation or disfellowshiped as the situation may call for. If after he has been reinstated he still is convinced that he had not made a dedication before his baptism and it therefore was invalid, he should, if he has not already done so, make an intelligent, binding dedication to God now that he has repented and proved his repentance by works befitting such and then he should be baptized. We cannot trifle with Jehovah God. This is a serious matter and should be treated seriously.
***
w62 6/1 pp. 332-333 Why Be Baptized? ***REBAPTISM
NECESSARY? 11
Due to certain circumstances at the time when they got baptized or due to subsequent developments, some have doubts about the validity of their past dedication and baptism, and they wonder if they should be rebaptized. They may have been baptized at an early age or while they were very immature in the truth, or after baptism they became inactive in the ministry for a time. At the baptism ceremony a talk on baptism is given to make clear what is involved in the matter of dedication and baptism. If one later has some doubts about the validity of his dedication, he should ask himself whether he understood that water baptism symbolized a dedication to do Jehovah?s will and whether he had actually made a dedication to do Jehovah?s will prior to baptism, even though his knowledge of the truth was limited at that time and he may have been gaining accurate knowledge by a Bible study for only a short time. Were the questions at the end of the ceremony answered in the affirmative and with a basic understanding of the significance thereof?
12
Naturally all should have grown in appreciation of their dedication since symbolizing it by water immersion. Certainly we did not appreciate it fully when we made it, or as fully as we do now. But this does not necessarily mean that we should be rebaptized, even though our immaturity might have later caused a temporary lapse in fulfilling our ministerial responsibilities. But if one submitted to baptism mainly because of emotional factors and without proper understanding, or in order to please one?s parents or others, and if this baptism did not symbolize a prior dedication to do Jehovah?s will, it would be proper to be baptized again. Dedication must come before baptism and not afterward.
13
Certain personal circumstances existing at the time of baptism would necessitate rebaptism. The psalmist David, in a song of praise to Jehovah, stated: "Who may ascend into the mountain of Jehovah, and who may rise up in his holy place? Anyone innocent in his hands and clean in heart, who has not carried My soul to sheer worthlessness, nor taken an oath deceitfully. He will carry away blessing from Jehovah and righteousness from his God of salvation." (Ps. 24:3-5) Dedication is a bilateral arrangement. Jehovah is the superior and we are the inferiors. Jehovah makes the terms of dedication; we comply with them. He requires that we first repent, turn from our former unclean practices and present ourselves as clean before him.
14
We could not imagine Jehovah accepting the dedication of anyone living in an immoral situation or doing at the time of baptism things that would result in his being cut off from Jehovah?s favor by disfellowshiping, if he were already in the Christian congregation. In ordinary business a contract is not valid unless it is signed and sealed properly by all parties concerned. On this principle it would be necessary for a formerly unfit person to be baptized again even though after his former baptism he discontinued these wrongs and made advancement in the truth and service of Jehovah. The first baptism could not symbolize a dedication made under proper circumstances that Jehovah could accept. He should now make a firm resolve to do Jehovah?s will and thus dedicate his life to Jehovah?s service and then submit to baptism at the earliest opportunity. If an unclean situation developed sometime after dedication and baptism, this would not make the dedication invalid. The individual, however, would be subject to appropriate discipline by the organization.
15
While the one performing the baptism should be a dedicated brother, the baptizer is not the important thing to consider in determining the validity of the baptism. The main question is, Have we heard the dedication discourse arranged by Jehovah?s theocratic organization and have we submitted ourselves to be baptized by one assigned by the organization? It would not be of concern to us later if it was found that the one who did the baptizing or the one who gave the baptism discourse found it necessary for himself to be baptized again. The important thing is the validity of the organization that he represented at the time and by the authorization and appointment of which he performed the water baptism.
***
w64 2/15 pp. 123-125 Did You Make an Acceptable Dedication to God? ***QUESTIONS
AT BAPTISM TALKIt may be that on some baptismal occasions in the past years specific questions that could be answered audibly were not asked of the baptismal candidates regarding their faith, obedience and dedication. Yet the failure of the speaker on baptism to pronounce such questions, and hence the failure of the baptismal candidates to answer audibly and affirmatively to such questions, do not undermine the validity of the baptism performed on such occasion. The deciding element in the matter is that the speaker correctly presented the significance of water baptism to the interested persons and they understood the matter, for which reason they went to the place of immersion, changed their clothing and submitted to being dipped beneath the waters.
There is no reason for persons today to think that because they have difficulty remembering what occurred a few or many years ago they did not know what they were doing on the occasion of their baptism. All their actions argue that they did understand and they did intelligently undergo water baptism in symbol of the dedication that they decisively made to Jehovah God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
In the October 1, 1942, issue of The Watchtower, on pages 300 to 302, an article entitled "Baptism" was published and this article concludes with the following statements: "Before proceeding with your baptism it is proper, first, that you answer affirmatively these questions to show you are taking this step with the Scriptural understanding thereof and are fit for baptism as a devoted servant of the Lord, fully responsible to Him: (1) Do you believe in Jehovah God the Father, that ?salvation belongeth unto Jehovah,? and that Christ Jesus is his Son in whose blood your sins are washed away and by whom salvation comes to you from God? (2) Have you therefore confessed your sins to God and asked for cleansing by Christ Jesus, and therefore turned away from sin and the world, and consecrated yourself without reservation to God to do his will? Your answer, being Yes, is testimony that you are worthy and in line for water baptism in obedience to God?s will."
In the next issue of the Watchtower magazine, that of October 15, 1942, in the account of the assembly of Jehovah?s witnesses at Cleveland, Ohio, on September 18-20, 1942, it says on page 319 regarding Sunday morning, September 20: "The day was opened with a discourse on ?Baptism? at 8 a.m., and 459 presented themselves for water immersion in symbol of their complete consecration to the Lord; it was a pleasure to behold so many young persons thus ?remembering their Creator in the days of their youth.? These, immediately after baptism, joined their other companions in the field activities."
The questions to be asked of the baptismal candidates before admitting them to water baptism were republished in a revised form in the February 1, 1945, issue of The Watchtower after the leading article on the subject "Baptism?Why?" namely, on page 44, under the heading "Questions." The questions there printed are substantially the same questions that are asked of baptismal candidates at the present time and to which they are expected to answer affirmatively in an audible manner before being admitted to the immersion.
Yet, because such questions which were to be audibly answered may have been omitted at a baptism talk in times past, it does not mean that the information presented did not accurately inform the persons interested about what they were doing. The publications of the Watch Tower Society had long made the matter plain and the men representing the Society who would be giving the baptism talks would have thoroughly understood what was involved and would have made it clear to their listeners.
PRIVATE
PRAYERSome state that they do not remember saying a specific, private prayer at the time of their dedication and wonder if such failure renders their baptism invalid.
It must be appreciated that not all prayer offered to Jehovah God needs to be offered on bended knee in the privacy of one?s own personal room at home. Prayer can be offered up to Jehovah from the heart silently and unobserved by outsiders even while one is walking along the street or while one is standing in the presence of another person, as in the case of Nehemiah, who was the cupbearer for the king and was standing in his presence at the time he prayed. (Neh. 2:3-5) Consequently, just because one cannot recall a specific moment when he made a decision to be henceforth and forever Jehovah God?s and whether it was made in one specific, private prayer, it does not mean that he did not make a direct dedication of himself to the Most High God before he was immersed in water.
Certainly before a person would be immersed in water in symbol of dedication he would have to make a decision to undergo such immersion. The very reason for making such a decision would be an understanding of what the water immersion symbolized and the obligations under which he understood himself henceforth to be because of making such a decision to be immersed. No individual walks into a water immersion of Jehovah?s witnesses blindly just because he happens to be found in the crowd of candidates, being swept off his feet along with the crowd into the water and into the hands of the immerser.
Even while the individual is changing his clothing and is preparing himself to enter into the water to be immersed, he manifests to himself and to all observers that he has made a decision to be forever afterward dedicated to Jehovah God through Jesus Christ. Such a decision is a solemn thing and evidently it is made in a prayerful mood, with one?s thoughts on the God who can read the heart. So whether one made such a decision of dedication long before the actual baptizing in water, or it was made during or after the baptismal talk, the incontrovertible fact remains that the individual made a dedication of himself from the heart in the presence of the Most High God, and that is the thing of primary importance.
On the day of Pentecost when the apostle Peter told the Jews, who had been cut to the heart by the words that he preached to them, what to do, they followed his advice, repented, and were baptized on that day. (Acts 2:37-41) They had little time in advance of their actual water baptism to make the decision to follow in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus. This decision they did not make on bended knee in prayer in the privacy of their homes, which were located in scattered parts of the Roman Empire and even outside of it. They made their decision just prior to the water baptism that Peter encouraged them to undergo. They evidently made their decision standing up in the presence of the apostles, upon whom the holy spirit had been poured out that day.
So one?s physical attitude, or one?s location at the time of making the decision of dedication, or whether it was done in one well-remembered specific prayer, does not determine the validity of the dedication vow that is thus made. The essential thing is that the dedication must be understood to be made to the Most High God through his Son, Jesus Christ, our Savior.
***
w70 5/15 p. 308 Your Conscience Toward Jehovah ***SOME
REBAPTIZED18 Now, when the teaching work is being carried on in all lands, among all kinds of people, and when lovers of righteousness respond to the preaching of the message of Jehovah?s established kingdom, new disciples come in line for baptism as outlined by the Bible. Maybe some of such persons have been sprinkled or immersed or had water poured on them in a religious ceremony or possibly have dipped themselves in the Ganges River or otherwise have utilized water in a religious ceremony. Some may have been immersed in association with the theocratic Christian congregation but without having studied the book "Your Word Is a Lamp to My Foot" and without an understanding and appreciation of dedication. Such persons may have wondered if they should now be baptized or perhaps be baptized again. Yes, they should, if they had not truly made a dedication before they were baptized but now are disciples, having come to a knowledge of the truth of God?s Word and having made a dedication to do Jehovah?s will. Yes, if the previous baptism was not the Scripturally ordained ceremony of complete immersion at the hands of a dedicated Christian witness of Jehovah. So if one finds that he has been at variance with the Holy Scriptures in this respect, having undergone no valid baptism of a disciple, then he is now due to perform the symbol of Christian baptism before witnesses in evidence of the dedication he now has made.
***
w73 6/1 p. 341 Keeping God?s Congregation Clean in the Time of His Judgment ***Would there be need for rebaptism on the part of those abandoning their addiction to tobacco or other harmful product? No, this does not seem necessary. Knowledge brings responsibility and educates the conscience. (1 Tim. 1:13) The congregation gave them to understand that their practice did not ?prevent them,? and they were baptized in accord with that understanding. (Acts 8:36) Of course, if an individual feels that he presented himself for baptism with a ?bad conscience? due to such practice, he may decide to be rebaptized. That would be his personal decision.
