Since my recent video inviting all baptized Christians to share the Lord’s evening meal with us, there has been a lot of activity in the comment sections of the English and Spanish YouTube channels questioning the whole issue of baptism. For many, the question is whether their former baptism as a Catholic or a Jehovah’s Witness is valid; and if not, how to go about being rebaptized. For others, the question of baptism seems incidental, with some claiming that only faith in Jesus is needed. I wish to address all these views and concerns in this video. My understanding from Scripture is that baptism is a solemn and vital requirement for Christianity.
Let me explain it with a little illustration about driving in Canada.
I’m turning 72 this year. I started driving when I was 16 years old. I have put over 100,000 km on my current car. So that means I’ve easily driven more than a million kilometers in my life. A lot more. I try to obey all the rules of the road. I think I’m a pretty good driver, but the fact that I have all this experience and obey all the traffic laws does not mean that the government of Canada recognizes me as a legal driver. For that to be the case, I must meet two requirements: the first is to carry a valid driver’s license and the other is an insurance policy.
If I’m stopped by the police and cannot produce both of these certificates – a driver’s license and proof of insurance – it doesn’t matter how long I’ve been driving and how good a driver I am, I’m still going to get in trouble with the law.
Similarly, there are two requirements Jesus established for every Christian to meet. The first is to be baptized in his name. At the first mass baptism following the outpouring of the holy spirit, we have Peter telling the crowd:
“. . .Repent, and let each one of YOU be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ . . .” (Acts 2:38)
“. . .But when they believed Philip, who was declaring the good news of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ, they proceeded to be baptized, both men and women.” (Acts 8:12)
“. . .With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.. . .” (Acts 10:48)
“. . .On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:5)
There are more, but you get the point. If you’re wondering why they didn’t baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Matthew 28:19 reads, there is a strong body of evidence that indicates that verse was added by a scribe in the 3rd century to bolster belief in the Trinity, since no manuscript from before that time contains it.
For a more thorough explanation of this, please check out this video.
Besides baptism, the other requirement of all Christians established by Jesus was to share in the bread and wine which are symbolic of his flesh and blood given in our behalf. Yes, you have to live a Christian life and you have to put faith in Jesus Christ. Just as you have to obey the rules of the road when you drive. But putting faith in Jesus and following his example won’t enable you to please God if you refuse to obey His Son’s commands to meet these two requirements.
Genesis 3:15 speaks prophetically about the seed of the woman which will eventually crush the seed of the serpent. It is the seed of the woman that puts an end to Satan. We can see that the culmination of the woman’s seed ends with Jesus Christ and includes the children of God that rule with him in the kingdom of God. Therefore, anything Satan can do to impede the gathering of this seed, the gathering of the children of God, he will do. If he can find a way to corrupt and invalidate the two requirements that identify Christians, that give them legitimacy before God, then he will delight in doing so. Sadly, Satan has had enormous success by using organized religion to pervert these two simple, but necessary, requirements.
There are many who are joining us this year for the memorial because they want to partake in accordance with the Bible’s direction on observing the Lord’s evening meal. However, a number are concerned because they are uncertain as to whether their baptism is valid. There have been many comments on both the English and Spanish YouTube channels as well as numerous emails that I get daily that show me just how widespread this concern is. Given how successful Satan has been in clouding the issue, we need to clear away the uncertainty that these various religious teachings have created in the minds of sincere individuals wanting to serve our Lord.
Let us start with the basics. Jesus did not just tell us what to do. He showed us what to do. He always leads by example.
“Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, in order to be baptized by him. But the latter tried to prevent him, saying: “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you, and are you coming to me?” Jesus replied to him: “Let it be this time, for in that way it is suitable for us to carry out all that is righteous.” Then he quit preventing him. After being baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water; and look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw God’s spirit descending like a dove and coming upon him. Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”” (Matthew 3:13-17 NWT)
We can learn a great deal about baptism from this. John objected at first because he baptized people in symbol of their repentance of sin, and Jesus had no sin. But Jesus had something else in mind. He was instituting something new. Many translations render Jesus’ words as does the NASB, “Allow it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
The purpose of this baptism is much more than accepting repentance of sin. It is about ‘fulfilling all righteousness.’ Ultimately, by means of this baptism of the children of God, all righteousness will be restored to earth.
Setting an example for us, Jesus was presenting himself to do God’s will. The symbology of full immersion in water conveys the idea of dying to a former way of life and being reborn, or born again, to a new way of life. Jesus speaks of being “born again” at John 3:3, but that phrase is a translation of two Greek words that literally mean, “born from above” and John speaks of this in other places as being “born of God”. (See 1 John 3:9; 4:7)
We will be dealing with being “born again” or “born of God” in a forthcoming future video.
Notice what happened immediately after Jesus came out of the water? The Holy Spirit descended upon him. God the Father anointed Jesus with his holy spirit. At this moment, and not before, Jesus becomes the Christ or the Messiah—specifically, the anointed one. In ancient times, they would pour oil on the head of someone—that is what “anointed” means—to anoint them to some high position. The prophet Samuel poured oil, anointed, David to make him king of Israel. Jesus is the greater David. Likewise, the children of God are anointed, to rule with Jesus in his kingdom for the salvation of humankind.
Of these, Revelation 5:9, 10 says,
“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Revelation 5:9, 10 ESV)
But the father doesn’t just pour out the Holy Spirit upon his son, he speaks from heaven saying, “this is my son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” Matthew 3:17
What an example God set for us. He told Jesus what every son or daughter yearns to hear from their father.
- He acknowledged him: “this is my son”
- He declared his love: “the beloved”
- And expressed his approval: “whom I have approved”
“I claim you as my child. I love you. I’m proud of you.”
We must realize that when we take this step to be baptized, this is how our heavenly father feels about us individually. He is claiming us as his child. He loves us. And he is proud of the step we have taken. There was no great pomp and circumstance to the simple act of baptism that Jesus instituted with John. Nevertheless, the ramifications are so profound to the individual as to be beyond words to express fully.
People have asked me repeatedly, “How can I go about getting baptized?” Well now you know. There is the example set by Jesus.
Ideally, you should find another Christian to perform the baptism, but if you cannot, then realize it’s a mechanical process and any human can do it, male or female. John the Baptist was not a Christian. The person doing the baptism does not confer upon you any special status. John was a sinner, not qualified even to untie the sandal that Jesus worn. It is the act of baptism itself that is important: the full immersion into and out of water. It is like signing a document. The pen you use doesn’t hold any legal value. It is your signature that matters.
Of course, when I get my driver’s license, it is with the understanding that I agree to obey the traffic laws. Likewise, when I get baptized, it is with the understanding that I will live my life by the high moral standard set by Jesus himself.
But given all that, let us not complicate the procedure unnecessarily. Consider as a guide, this Bible account:
“Tell me,” said the eunuch, “who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”
Then Philip began with this very Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road and came to some water, the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is there to prevent me from being baptized?” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:34-39 BSB)
The Ethiopian sees a body of water, and asks: “What prevents me from being baptized?” Evidently, nothing. Because Philip quickly baptized him and then they each went on their separate way. Only two people are mentioned although there was somebody driving the chariot evidently, but we only hear about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. All you need is yourself, someone else, and a body of water.
Try to avoid religious ceremonies if at all possible. Remember the devil wants to invalidate your baptism. He doesn’t want people to be born again, to have the Holy Spirit descend upon them and anoint them as one of God’s children. Let us take one example of how he is accomplished this sinister work.
The Ethiopian eunuch could never have been baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses because first he would have had to answer something like 100 questions to even qualify. If he answered all of them correctly, then he would have had to answer two more questions in the affirmative at the time of his baptism.
(1) “Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ?”
(2) “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with Jehovah’s organization?”
If you are unfamiliar with this, you might wonder why the second question is needed? After all, are Witnesses getting baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or in the name of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society? The reason for the second question is to address legal issues. They want to attach your baptism as a Christian to membership in the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses so that they cannot be sued for revoking your membership. What this amounts to essentially is essentially that if you’re disfellowshipped, they have revoked your baptism.
But let’s not waste time with the second question, because the real sin involves the first one.
Here is how the Bible defines baptism, and notice that I’m using the New World translation since we are dealing with a doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you (not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 3:21)
So baptism is a request or appeal to God to have a good conscience. You know you are a sinner, and that you sin constantly in many ways. But because you have taken the step to get baptized so as to show the world that you now belong to the Christ, you have a basis for asking for forgiveness and getting it. The grace of God is extended to us through baptism through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and so he washes our conscience clean.
When Peter says that “which corresponds to this” he’s referring to what is stated in the previous verse. He refers to Noah and the building of the ark and likens it to being baptized. Noah had faith, but that faith was not a passive thing. That faith induced him to take a stand in a wicked world and build the ark and obey the command of God. Likewise, when we obey the command of God, we get baptized, we identify ourselves as a faithful servant of God. Like the act of building the ark and entering into it, it is baptism that saves us, because the act of being baptized allows God to pour out his Holy Spirit upon us just as he did with his son when his son performed the same act. Through that spirit, we are born again or born of God.
Of course, that’s not good enough for the Society of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have a different definition of baptism claiming that it corresponds or is symbolic of something else.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that baptism is a symbol of one’s dedication to God. The Insight book reads, “In a corresponding way, those who would dedicate themselves to Jehovah on the basis of faith in the resurrected Christ, get baptized in symbol of that…” (it-1 p. 251 Baptism)
“…she decided to go ahead and get baptized in symbol of her dedication to Jehovah God.” (w16 December p. 3)
But there is still more to it. This dedication is accomplished by swearing an oath or making a vow of dedication.
The Watchtower of 1987 tells us this:
“Humans who come to love the true God and who determine to serve him completely should dedicate their lives to Jehovah and then be baptized.”
“This accords with the general meaning of “vow,” as in the definition: “a solemn promise or undertaking, especially in the form of an oath to God.”—Oxford American Dictionary, 1980, page 778.
Consequently, it does not seem necessary to limit the use of the word “vow.” A person who decides to serve God may feel that, for him, his unreserved dedication amounts to a personal vow—a vow of dedication. He ‘solemnly promises or undertakes to do something,’ which is what a vow is. In this case, it is to use his life to serve Jehovah, doing His will faithfully. Such an individual should feel seriously about this. It should be as with the psalmist, who, referring to things that he had vowed, said: “What shall I repay to Jehovah for all his benefits to me? The cup of grand salvation I shall take up, and on the name of Jehovah I shall call. My vows I shall pay to Jehovah.”—Psalm 116:12-14” (w87 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers)
Notice that they acknowledge that a vow is a sworn oath to God. They also acknowledge this vow comes before one gets baptized, and we’ve already seen that they believe that baptism is a symbol of this oath-bound dedication. Finally, they close their line of reasoning by citing the Psalm that says “My vows I shall pay to Jehovah”.
Okay, it all seems well and good, doesn’t it? It seems logical to say that we should dedicate our lives to God, doesn’t it? In fact, there was a study article in The Watchtower just a few years ago all about baptism, and the title of the article was, “What You Vow, Pay”. (See April, 2017 Watchtower p. 3) The theme text for the article was Matthew 5:33, but in what has become more and more typical, they only quoted a part of the verse: “You must pay your vows to Jehovah.”
All of this is so wrong I hardly know where to start. Well, that’s not exactly true. I do know where to start. Let’s start with a word search. If you use the Watchtower Library program, and search on the word “baptism” as a noun or verb, you will find well over 100 occurrences in the Christian Greek Scriptures to baptism or being baptized. Obviously, a symbol is less important than the reality it represents. Therefore, if the symbol occurs 100 times and more one would expect the reality – in this case the vow of dedication – to occur as much or more. It doesn’t occur even once. There is no record of any Christian making a vow of dedication. In fact, the word dedication as a noun or verb occurs only four times in the Christian Scriptures. In one instance, at John 10:22 it refers to a Jewish Festival, the festival of dedication. In another, it refers to the dedicated things of the Jewish temple which were going to be overthrown. (Luke 21:5, 6) The other two instances both refer to the same parable of Jesus in which something dedicated is cast in a very unfavorable light.
“. . .But YOU men say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother: “Whatever I have by which you may get benefit from me is corban, (that is, a gift dedicated to God,)”’— YOU men no longer let him do a single thing for his father or his mother,” (Mark 7:11, 12—See also Matthew 15:4-6)
Now think about this. If baptism is a symbol of dedication and if every person getting baptized was supposed to make a vow to God of dedication before being immersed in water, why is the Bible silent about this? Why doesn’t the Bible tell us to make this vow before getting baptized? Does that make any sense? Did Jesus forget to tell us about this vital requirement? I don’t think so, do you?
The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses has made this up. They have fabricated a false requirement. In doing so, they have not only corrupted the baptismal process but have induced Jehovah’s Witnesses to disobey a direct command of Jesus Christ. Let me explain.
Going back to the aforementioned 2017 Watchtower article, let’s read the whole of the context of the articles theme text.
“Again you heard that it was said to those of ancient times: ‘You must not swear without performing, but you must pay your vows to Jehovah.’ However, I say to you: Do not swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Do not swear by your head, since you cannot turn one hair white or black. Just let your word ‘Yes’ mean yes, your ‘No,’ no, for what goes beyond these is from the wicked one.” (Matthew 5:33-37 NWT)
The point the Watchtower article is making is that you have to keep your vow of dedication, but the point Jesus is making is that the making of vows is a thing of the past. He commands us not to do it anymore. He goes so far as to say that making vows or swearing oaths comes from the wicked one. That would be Satan. So here we have the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses requiring Jehovah’s Witnesses to make a vow, to swear an oath to God of dedication, when Jesus tells them not only not to do that, but warns them that it comes from a satanic source.
In defense of the watchtower doctrine, some have said, “What’s wrong with being dedicated to God? Are we not all dedicated to God?” What? Are you smarter than God? Are you going to start telling God what baptism means? What father gathers his children around him and tells them, “Listen, I love you, but that’s not enough. I want you to be dedicated to me. I want you to swear an oath of dedication to me?”
There is a reason this is not a requirement. It doubles down on sin. You see, I’m going to sin. As I’m born in sin. And I’m going to have to pray to God to forgive me. But if I have sworn an oath of dedication, that means that if I sin, I have in that moment, the moment of that sin ceased to be dedicated servant of God and have become dedicated or devoted to sin as my master. I have broken my oath, my vow. So now I have to repent for the sin itself, and then repent for the broken vow. Two sins. But it gets worse. You see, a vow is a kind of contract.
Let me illustrate it this way: we make wedding vows. The Bible doesn’t require us to make wedding vows and no one in the Bible is shown making a wedding vow, but we do make wedding vows nowadays so I will use that for this illustration. The husband vows to be faithful to his wife. What happens if he goes out and sleeps with another woman? He has broken his vow. That means the wife is no longer required to hold up her end of the marriage contract. She is free to remarry, because the vow has been broken and rendered null and void.
So, if you vow to God to be dedicated to him and then sin and break that dedication, that vow, you have rendered the verbal contract null and void. God does not have to hold up his end of the bargain anymore. That means that each time you sin and repent you have to make a new vow of dedication. It gets ridiculous.
If God required us to make a vow like this as part of the baptismal process, he would be setting us up for failure. He would be guaranteeing our failure because we cannot live without sinning; therefore, we cannot live without breaking the vow. He wouldn’t do that. He hasn’t done that. Baptism is a commitment we make to do our best within our sinful state to serve God. That is all he asks of us. If we do that, he pours out his grace on us, and it is his grace through the power of the Holy Spirit that saves us because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Both my driver’s license and my insurance policy give me the legal right to drive in Canada. I still have to obey the rules of the road, of course. My baptism in the name of Jesus together with my regular observance of the Lord’s evening meal fulfill the requirements for me to call myself a Christian. Of course, I still have to obey the rules of the road, the road leading to life.
However, for the vast majority of Christians, their driver’s license is fake and their insurance policy is invalid. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they have so perverted baptism as to make it meaningless. And then they deny people the right to partake of the emblems, and go so far as to require them to be present and reject them publicly. Catholics baptized children by sprinkling water on them, completely shirking the example of water baptism set by Jesus. When it comes to partaking of the Lord’s evening meal, their laity only get half a meal, the bread—except for certain high masses. Further, they teach the fallacy that the wine magically transforms itself into real human blood as it goes down the pallet. Those are just two examples of how Satan has perverted the two requirements all Christians must meet through organized religion. He must be rubbing his hands and laughing with glee.
To all who are still uncertain, if you want to be baptized, find a Christian – they’re all over the place – ask him or her to go with you to a pool or a pond or hot tub or even a bathtub, and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. It is between you and God, who through baptism you will call “Abba or dear Father”. There is no need to utter a special phrase or some ritualistic incantation
If you wish to have the person baptizing you, or even yourself, say I’m getting baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, go ahead. Or if you just want to know this in your heart as you get baptised, that works as well. Again, there is no special ritual here. What there is, is a deep commitment in your heart between you and God that you are willing to be accepted as one of his children through the act of baptism and to receive the outpouring of holy spirit that adopts you.
It is so very simple, and yet at the same time so profound and life altering. I really hope this has answered any questions you may have regarding baptism. If not, please place your comments in the comments section, or send me an email at meleti.vivlon@gmail.com, and I’ll do my best to answer them.
Thank you for watching and for your ongoing support.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Ilya on 2021-03-20 19:11:55
Perfect, Eric! Pure truth! Dipping only in the name of Jesus the Anointed One.
I have re-dipped previous summer and feel truly happy as simple christian.
Btw lie of JWs is also that baptism is impossible without an affirmative answer to the next question: “Do you believe that the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses is ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ appointed by Jesus?”
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014952#h=39Reply by katrina on 2021-03-21 01:23:05
Wow just noticed that question for the first time, its all about them.
Reply by Ad_Lang on 2021-03-21 07:19:13
I think I was baptised properly.
Was reminded and questioned on this point, and come to the conclusion that either one of two things happened:
- by further studying God's Word, as we're encouraged to do, I learned that this is not true; or
- the GB was appointed as "faithful and discreet slave" and have abandoned their assignment to go their own way, like oftentimes happened with the Israelites, as the Hebrew Scriptures show us.
After today's public talk and WT study article, I think it is getting time to become more outspoken about the truth within the congregation, because the speaker was actually praising those working hard for people to get vaccinated etc.
Most of these "vaccines" are not of the traditional kind, that stir an immune response by chemical reactions. Some of these potions are designed to enter individual cells in our bodies. Some of these potions do indeed alter DNA, while others make changes to the way some of our cells work in different ways.
Do not make the mistakes that most JWs make by blindly believing everything the governing body says. Don't blindly believe either the governments and media, or the criticism on the other side (including mine), but do your own research and make your own well-informed decisions. As much as the truth might be hidden, there is One who can and will reveal the truth to us (see 2 Cor. 4:2-6, among others).Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-24 16:15:18
Yes, let us not use this Bible research (not religious) forum for off-topic debates.
Reply by Ad_Lang on 2021-03-24 19:56:22
I'm sorry to see this.
It's quite like the reactions I have become familiar with in the congregation, especially from the elders. It is ironic how you go the accurate way above, suggesting corrections to the text on the claims and evidence around Matthew 28:19, but here you just resort to rejecting as "conspiracy theory", "rumors" and "misinformation" whatever it is that you find to be that.
I tend to put up with a lot, and I have been fine taking verbal abuse for being a Witness from people who felt negative about it for their own personal reasons. However, this I find downright offensive, to claim that I am blindly believing some assertions without seeking evidence, that I just say things without thinking. You don't know what I've been thinking about, what I've seen, what I've researched. If you don't want to know, then go and live in whatever world you like to live in, but at least refrain from attacking people personally.
Sometimes Bible research touches on our daily lives, but I have to agree with Eric, to be fair, that this subject is off-topic for the article. Perhaps it is better to give it another place - and I see it being necessary.
I'll take comfort in knowing that people who were ahead of their time, be it prophets, scientists or otherwise, were often treated poorly for having different ideas. I've come to the understanding that there are certain priorities, and if we cannot behave like we know Christians should, then it really won't matter whether we partake of the Lord's evening meal, or even are baptised (1 Cor. 13:2; Jam. 4:17).Reply by Frankie on 2021-03-25 19:44:10
Hi Just Wondering.
May I have one question for you, very biblical and very actual with respect to vaccination. Again, very biblical question, no off-Bible question, although off-topic regarding this video theme:
“Is abortion a murder?”
Your answer - a) Yes, b) No, c) I don’t know
Of course you don't have to answer.
Frankie
Reply by Ilya on 2021-03-26 06:05:22
Thanx, Ad_Lang! You can research and compare at:
https://jw.fail
What says Jehovah and what JWs.
About your second dot-statement: “For there is […] one mediator between God and humans, a man Jesus, the Anointed One”
1 Timothy 2:5
Without other intermediaries.
Without slaves.
Without organizations or modern churches.
Without governing body.Reply by Ad_Lang on 2021-03-26 09:58:28
Great site, thanks!
It actually teaches me something about myself. Something I have come to know already recently, but understanding the consequences is a whole different thing.
I tend to believe the best of people, on face value considering their motives and intentions are honest and decent. Some call it naive, I think there's a bit more to it. We live in a very judgmental world, which is the complete opposite: some people do find fault with everything about others, what they do, say etc. I feel strongly against that.
And so it happened to me that I fell from one extreme to the other, quite a common thing with people, even if taking a cautious approach. As a result, I was always seeking for ways why those studying with me could somehow be right, e.g. Jehovah could indeed use a human governing body [but Scriptures do not say exclusively]. Any doctrine that was off from what I saw in the Scriptures, I quietly dismissed or re-adjusted in my own mind. In my desire to find truth and something/someone agreeable, I think I lost track of the priority that truth has: not everything must be 100% accurate, but there are certain truths that must not be distorted.
In the meanwhile, I am learning to trust what I see in people, and to deal with it properly; it's the difference of individual vs. behaviour, I suppose.
The funniest thing has happened recently: I have a bible study with another christian, and things turned out in such a manner that for some time there've been 2 elders with us each week. But earlier this week, I explained to him individually, on the phone, why I wasn't entirely free to speak my mind with the other two around.
His proposal went like this: "why don't we have a chat afterwards to discuss the things you don't agree with?"
The way things came to be between us was a bit unusual, and I am convinced that individual brothers (m/f) do get holy spirit, because God is impartial. I am, however, conscious that the call in Revelation 18:4 isn't there for nothing. For that reason, my compliments to those who do their best to warn those within religious organisations; an effort I certainly like to share in.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2021-03-21 16:44:40
Thanks Ilya. That is one of the baptism questions that a person must go through with the elders. Another involves enjoying meetings and commenting, while one that discusses Leviticus 5:1 does not even try to consider the verses as in the 2013 NWT. The subject is based on the incorrect translation in the previous NWT. I doubt that any younger person would even suspect those questions are misleading.
However, the one you raise is the worst of the lot, in my opinion. What any of those questions has to do with being a baptised Christian, I leave others to tell me. They look like the rules of a club, to me, . although you might spell club differently, if you see what I mean.
Comment by Domine Ivimus on 2021-03-20 19:16:05
Ooooh boy...,. I feel I have been waiting for this article for a long time. And now it is time for some deep inward reflection.
Thank you
Comment by Zacheus on 2021-03-20 20:34:15
I was B at about 12 in the Church of Christ. Many years later with its long story i went for B at a wt convention. As I and others were changing before the event some "elder"-? came in and asked if anyone was being B for the second time. Me and one other raised our hands. This elder assumed the most smug look and left the room. We all looked at each other confused.
So something was going on there.?
Comment by swaffi on 2021-03-24 00:54:02
Nicely said, Eric. This was the very first crack in the dam for me in 2015 when I addressed the "dedication vow to Jehovah before I one gets baptised issue" with a couple of elders. I also vented my frustration at a Watchtower study to do with young ones and baptism and was subsequently asked into the back room. There is so much hypocrisy here it's hard to even start. I remember first reading an article from perimeno.ca about dedication, baptism and covenant relationships. This is regarding JW's of course. JW's try to make the word "covenant" and "dedication" interchangeable. Jehovah entered into a covenant with Israel. Israel did not dedicate itself to Jehovah. An organisation cannot do this anyway, only individuals can. Even if they were all dedicated, it has nothing to do with baptism anyway
Comment by Frankie on 2021-03-24 03:58:43
Hi Eric.
You started a very interesting but certainly controversial topic and I would like to express my position on the whole matter. I have discussed the question of the validity of the WT baptism several times and it has always been a long discussion with a not always clear conclusion. Determining the validity of someone's baptism, even on the basis of biblical verses, is not easy. Here we enter the territory of everyone's personal conscience and their relationship with God. This thing can be justly judged by Jesus only (John 2:25).
My following comments are based on my current understanding and I do not claim they represent the only truth (1. Cor 13:12).
It is clear that baptism (as well as faith) is essential. I see the problem in trying to define the validity of baptism and, on the basis of this definition, to recommend or not to recommend taking the emblems. If I declare that only a certain type of baptism is valid, although based on biblical reasoning, then what about with a billion of Christians who do not meet this definition? Are all of them Christians if their baptism is invalid? If some of them refuse to deny Jesus Christ, are they dying in vain at the hands of Muslim extremists because they do not meet our criteria for the validity of baptism? Definitely not.
So much for thought. Moreover, I would like to comment on some statements in the video.
1. Eric: "Ideally, you should find another Christian to perform the baptism, but if you cannot, then realize it's a mechanical process and any human can do it, male or female. John the Baptist was not a Christian. ..... John was a sinner, not qualified even to untie the sandal that Jesus worn.”
John the Baptist was not a Christian and was a sinner. It is true. But he cannot serve as an example so that a Christian can be mechanically baptized by anyone, such as a Buddhist monk or a Pachamama worshiper. John the Baptist is an exception because he was predestined for his role by Jehovah (Luke 1:13-17) and was directly entrusted with Him (John 1:6) to fulfill the prophecy (Malachi 4:5-6) - unlike any non-Christian today. I understood from the other verses of the Bible that the baptism of the future Christian would be performed by another Christian (e.g. Philip and the Ethiopian, Peter and Cornelius, Paul in Ephesus).
On the other hand, you said very well that:
" .... if you want to be baptized, find a Christian – they're all over the place – ask him or her to go with you ...... "
2. Eric: "If you wish to have the person baptizing you, or even yourself, .........”
Nowhere in NT did I find any mention of self-baptism. In case of baptism, someone always baptizes and someone is baptized - this is a biblical procedure. Jesus was also baptized by John the Baptist.
3. Eric: "To all who are still uncertain, ....
Here you mentioned an important thing - "who are still uncertain". Because someone may be uncertain about their WT baptism, but someone may be sure of it.
a) As to our JW brothers and sisters, the baptism within the WT is sufficient because of the first question (if necessary, I can explain my opinion) and words spoken just before immersion. If someone wants, he/she can confess their position to Jehovah in sincere prayer. And if someone is unsure, based on his or her conscience, let them be re-baptized. It is a matter of conscience, and it is between God and man. I do not think it is necessary to send confusing signals to number of PIMO brothers and sisters about the validity of baptism right now and to define which baptism is valid and which is invalid with the serious consequences of not attending the Memorial.
b) But on the other hand, it is very good that you stressed the importance of baptism for Memorial for others who are not baptized yet.
4. Eric: "There is no need to utter a special phrase or some ritualistic incantation.”
At baptism, both the one who baptizes and the one who is baptized turn to God. They stand before God's throne and the baptized one symbolizes his/her death with Christ and the beginning of a new life as a new creation. You said very well that it is the signature of the baptized one.
The Bible speaks of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to imagine that e.g. Peter baptized Cornelius and his household without a word. What was Peter saying during this act? Therefore I think that if someone who baptizes has to say something, let them say, "I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" (I give this only as a good example) as a testimony to all - God, Jesus, angels and people.
Thank you Eric for your perseverance and hard selfless work for all the brothers and sisters. Your BP, with all brothers and sisters here, is my real congregation. If I misunderstood any of the ideas from your video, please explain it to me in more detail. Please, take my comments (written in good faith) on your video as the opinion of your brother who has a slightly different view of the issue of baptism validation, but who loves you.
God bless you.
FrankieReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-24 09:08:57
Of course ideally one should be baptized by someone who believes as one does, but failing that, by a believer in Jesus Christ. However, what if there is no fellow Christian? Should one forgo baptism in that case? What if it was impossible to find another human. I can't really see a scenario like that, but the point is, is it a ritual or is it a commitment to God. If a ritual, then God would say I don't care how you feel about me, if you don't do it the way I want you to do it, it is worthless. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not trying to make rules.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-24 16:14:18
https://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/08/matthew-2819-and-1-john-57-spurious.htmlReply by oneapart on 2021-03-30 23:45:59
Eric, regarding the links you shared
https://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
There is no such biblical word as the "Godhead", as I'm sure you know.Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings including Matthew 28:19 several times. But he never quotes it as it appears in modern Bibles. He always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”
Your source is factually wrong. Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 multiple times as it appears in modern Bibles. This man is factually wrong stating, he "always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.”" As a matter of fact, Eusebius quotes the verse in one way when he's talking about disciplining the nations, and another when speaking of baptism. It should be easy via a re-review of your source that each instance he put on the page is of Eusebius speaking of witnessing or making disciples, and specifically not one of baptism. This means of quoting the verse is accurate to Christian theology—after all, Jesus said:...you will be witnesses for Me... to the uttermost part of the earth. —Acts 1:8, BLB
In other words, indeed we disciple the nations "in my name" rather than discipline the nations "into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Your source also insinuates "church fathers" destroyed all manuscripts and replaced the text with what they "wanted it to become". Before one would accuse their brothers of such an evil act against the Holy Spirit and Word of God, it seems you would want to have evidence... or "two witnesses". After all, we will all be held to account for what we teach, and what we say, one day. I will defend these men's honour against this accusation: 303 AD the Roman Emperor Diocletian called for the destruction of all the scriptures of the Christians.“In this year imperial orders were given that the Christian churches were to be destroyed, the sacred books be burnt, and the clergy and all Christians be handed over for torture and be compelled to sacrifice to idols. This was the most terrifying persecution of all, producing countless martyrs.” — Aramaic Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor, Diocletian 19th year, AM 5795, AD 302/303
Eusebius confirms,“I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razzed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place…”
So your suggestion and that of this source is that Eusebius was in effect lying about his esteem that the scriptures are "inspired and sacred" and undertook to replace this verse he knew so well uninspired words of another spirit in order to create a trinitarian formula... and on this assumption and accusation, applied to Eusebius and the others who created our extant manuscripts, you've removed "the Holy Spirit"....there are two requirements Jesus established for every Christian to meet. The first is to be baptized in his name... Besides baptism, the other requirement of all Christians established by Jesus was to share in the bread and wine which are symbolic of his flesh and blood given in our behalf.
Since we've gotten so technical as to discard the verse of Matthew 28:19 which is Jesus' recorded words, and specifically a command, I will point out that your scriptural evidence is of the apostles recorded acts and not the command of the Word, our Lord. Neither did the Lord command people that they eat the bread and drink the wine—at the time of Passover when he offered it to 5,000 unbaptized followers (John 6) he explained its meaning and effect. He made no command. And in fact, these were not baptised Christians. (John 6:2,26) Our Lord, the next Passover, indeed used the imperative, telling his apostles to eat, drink. Then we come to the crux, the command Christ gave which gives us the ritual remembrance, which is the command at Matthew 28:18-20:Having come to them, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to Me. 19 Therefore having gone, disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the completion of the age.”
In this command, we have the command to baptize "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.
So here we can either abide by the Word of our Lord, and his command, or reason. You've chosen the anti-Christ position, literally to stand opposite or opposed to the anointed, and in this teaching, additionally against the Holy Spirit—for if these are the Lord's words, and his command, then it was the Holy Spirit who ensured it was written, and preserved to this day, as well as taught worldwide as part of "all the Truth". I will argue on the side of the Word of God, Christ and the anointed, and the Holy Spirit.to baptize in the “name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit” would mean in recognition of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.—Matt. 28:19.
—Raymond Franz, Name, Aid to Bible Understanding
The Christ was called "Son of Man" and "Son of God" and spoke of "my Father" and taught us to pray "our Father". In that day no one was allowed to use God's name, let alone be baptized using it. The only begotten god—the son of God, was sent, and came in his father's name, literally. Yehowshua or Y'shua, is not short for "Yah is Salvation", but YHWH is Salvation, literally. The Lord's name is theophoric and patrynomic—he came in his father's name, literally. Yet as Raymond Franz would teach you if he could, it's not the name, literally, that matters. Your sources and followers cite that no apostle baptized 'in the name of...' Indeed, it was INTO the name of... and where names were not even mentioned— After all, how COULD the apostles baptize using the name of Yehowah God? Your source listed two verses from Acts 8, but skipped the point:the Holy Spirit... not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. — Acts 8:15,16
Now, Acts 19:1-7having found certain disciples, he also said to them,
“Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?”
And they said to him, “But not even did we hear that there is a Holy Spirit.”
And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?”
The apostles account here confirms what Raymond Franz taught when he penned the entry for "Name" in the Aid book.How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?
The apostles considered these men disciples and were concerned with whether or not they had received the Holy Spirit, just as in the case of Acts 8. Only after learning they did NOT have the Holy Spirit did they ask how they were baptized:And they said, “Into the baptism of John.”
Then Paul said, “John baptized a baptism of repentance, telling the people that they should believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
And having heard, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Indeed, having heard—of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of the Lord, they rebaptize.
Again, we have confirmation that this is the "into the 'name' of" where the name of the Son gives us the name of the Father—and, the "name" of the Holy Spirit of whom they had only just heard!
Was this "a name", like our names identify us, as in mine, Angela Marie?
No, it is as Raymond taught us—and as I know you refuse to listen to me, hear him:
to baptize in the “name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit” (Matt. 28:19)
would mean in recognition of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit.
You said, "Go in peace."
And if any place will not receive you nor hear you, departing from there, shake off the dust which is under your feet, for a testimony against them." — Mark 6:11, BLB
Is this a place from which I should depart?
I did not come in a spirit of self-righteousness nor contentiousness as you posted, rather convicted:
...abide in the things you have learned and have been assured of, having known from whom you learned, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings, being able to make you wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been fully equipped toward every good work. — 2 Tim 3:, BLB
Rather than teaching there are only "two requirements" of Christ and whittling away at scripture with "a strong body of evidence" amounting to no scriptural evidence, nor evidence from manuscripts, nor against Eusebius, please consider, given Holy Spirit to teach you, teaching what it means to be baptized recognizing the Father and Son, and what the scriptures teach about not recognizing the Holy Spirit (in baptism) or discerning the body.
And this is love, that we should walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.
Did you not read and understand?
For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body... — 1 Corinthians 12:13
Eric, please don't delete my post and respond indirectly, tell me to go in peace, if you wish.
P.S. I intended to do a complete review of your two links and their fallacies, but I prefer studying scripture instead. If I do, I'll incorporate it into my post rather than keep responding on this post here as I'm the only one still responding. Your video will live on.
Reply by Fani on 2021-04-01 05:56:36
Qui peut vraiment savoir si Mathieu 28 : 19 a été modifié ?
Nous n'avons effectivement pas les manuscrits de Mathieu 28 du début du siècle.
Prétendre que des hommes l'ont rajouté me fait penser à ce que prétend la société WT quand elle dit que YHWH a été supprimé du Nouveau Testament.
Aucune preuve. Beaucoup de manuscrits du debut de l'ère chrétienne ont été brûlés en raison de la persécution.
De toutes facons, ces paroles "au nom du Père, du Fils et du Saint Esprit" :
- ne prouvent en rien la Trinité.
Au contraire, il parle de 3 entités distinctes.
La preuve c'est que lorsque Philippe baptise en Samarie au nom du Christ ils n'ont pas reçu l'esprit Saint.
Donc c'est bien 2 entités différentes.
- se faire baptiser "au nom de..." n'est pas une formule magique mais une reconnaissance de ces 3 points (brièvement résumés) :
1- YHWH est le Dieu Tout Puissant
2- Christ a été envoyé par son Père pour nous racheter et est le seul canal, le seul Enseignant entre Dieu et les humains
3- l'esprit saint (même si nous ne savons pas bien l'identifier) est envoyé pour nous assister et nous donner l'intelligence spirituelle
Que ces mots "au nom du Père..." ait été rajouté (peut-être) il me semble qu'il nous faut quand même reconnaître ces 3 points ci-dessus pour être baptisés.
Avant de venir sur ce site je n'avais jamais entendu parler de la possibilité que Mathieu 28 : 29 ait été modifié.
Tout cela m'a un peu embrouillée.
Je trouve que personne ne peut affirmer bibliquement sa position.
Ce ne sont que des suppositions, non ?Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-04-02 08:33:20
Les suppositions sont des deux côtés de la question. Puisque tous les manuscrits avant le troisième siècle ne contiennent pas le dernier chapitre de Matthieu, nous ne pouvons pas affirmer avec certitude que Matthieu 24:19 n'a pas été falsifié ni affirmer que c'est vrai. Ce dernier ne peut être affirmé parce qu'il n'y a aucune corroboration dans d'autres parties de la Bible pour le soutenir, puisque tous les baptêmes enregistrés dans le Nouveau Testament ont été faits uniquement au nom de Jésus.
The guesses are on both sides of the question. Since all the manuscripts before the third century do not contain the last chapter of Matthew, we cannot state with certainty that Matthew 24:19 has not been tampered with nor can we assert that it is true. The latter cannot be asserted because there is no corroboration in other parts of the Bible to support it, since all baptisms recorded in the New Testament were made only in the name of Jesus.
Comment by Fani on 2021-03-25 03:46:14
Je suis surprise par l'idée que Jean Baptiste n'était pas un chrétien.
Bien sûr les disciples du Christ furent appelés chrétiens plus tard et le Christ mourut plus tard.
Mais est ce le plus important cette question de temps ?
Jean Baptiste a reconnu le Christ comme l'envoyé de Dieu, l'agneau qui ote le péché du monde. N'est ce pas là la caractéristique d'un chrétien ?
Ce sont les hommes (par providence divine ?) qui ont appelé les disciples du Christ "chrétiens". N'auraient ils pas qualifié Jean Baptiste de disciple de Christ donc de chrétien?
Comment Christ aurait pu être baptisé par quelqu'un qui ne le reconnaissait pas comme le Christ, s'identifiant ainsi à un chrétien ?
Ou qu'est ce qu'un chrétien ?
Merci de m'expliquer plus précisément.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-25 09:02:10
Je ne suggère pas que Jean ne sera pas avec les enfants de Dieu. De même, Abraham, Moïse et David, entre autres, seront inclus parmi les enfants de Dieu. Je dis seulement qu'aucun d'entre eux n'était chrétien. Se sont-ils tournés vers le Christ pour le salut? Oui, mais être chrétien est autre chose. Le mot signifie «oint». Les chrétiens sont oints de l'esprit saint après leur baptême. Jean n'a pas baptisé les autres comme chrétiens. Vous vous souviendrez peut-être qu'Apollos et 12 autres croyaient en Jésus et le prêchaient mais n'avaient pas reçu l'esprit saint parce qu'ils avaient été baptisés lors du baptême de Jean. En aucun cas, je n'essayais de rabaisser le rôle de John.
I am not suggesting that John won't be with the children of God. Likewise, Abraham, Moses, and David among others will be included in the children of God. I'm only saying that none of them were Christians. Did they look to the Christ for salvation? Yes, but being a Christian is something else. The word means "anointed one". Christians are anointed with the holy spirit following their baptism. John didn't baptize others as Christians. You may recall that Apollos and 12 others believed in Jesus and preached him but hadn't recieved the holy spirit because they had been baptized in John's baptism. In no way was I trying to demean John's role, however.Reply by Fani on 2021-03-25 13:58:39
Je ne pensais pas du tout que tu rabaissais Jean Baptiste. Nous sommes d'accord, il est un enfant de Dieu, le plus juste selon Jésus, que la terre ait porté.
Christ = oint = christos
Chrétien =
mot grec Χριστιανός (khristianos) — « disciple du Christ » — est dérivé du mot Χριστός (Christos) — celui qui est oint — avec une fin adjectivale empruntée au latin qui signifie « adhérer à » ou « faire partie de"
Ou disciple de Christ, adepte de Christ.
Il ne me semble pas que chrétien signifie "oint" mais "disciple de l'oint" .
C'est à ce titre que je pense que Jean Baptiste était un chrétien.
Il me semble que les disciples qui n'avaient pas encore reçu l'esprit saint étaient quand même des chrétiens car ils suivaient le Christ.
Rien dans les écritures nous dit qu'on pouvait les appeler chrétiens qu'après leur onction.
Ils ont eu juste une meilleure compréhension du baptême.
C'est le monde extérieur qui les a appelés chrétiens. Je ne crois pas que le monde les considéraient comme oints. Par contre, ils étaient bien définis par des gens "qui suivaient le christ". Donc cette appellation a très bien convenu aux disciples du Christ.
Lors de notre baptême aujourd'hui, recevons nous l'esprit saint comme l'ont reçu les 1ers chrétiens ?
Je ne le constate pas alors que pour les 1ers chrétiens c'était manifestement visible.
Pourtant je suis sûre d'être chrétienne.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-25 14:37:26
Même si nous acceptons la définition que Chrétien signifie «Disciple du Christ», cela montre toujours que Jean n'était pas chrétien parce qu'il n'était pas un disciple du Christ. Il avait ses propres disciples et ils étaient distincts des disciples du Christ, et ils sont allés au Christ pour demander s'il était le Christ ou s'ils devaient en attendre un autre.
«. . .Mais Jean, ayant entendu parler en prison des oeuvres du Christ, envoya ses disciples pour lui demander: «Es-tu celui qui vient, ou devons-nous en attendre un autre?» (Matthieu 11: 2, 3)
Even if we accept the definition that Christian means 'Disciple of Christ', that still shows that John wasn't a Christian because he was not a disciple of Christ. He had his own disciples and they were distinct from the disciples of Christ, and they went to Christ to ask if he was the Christ or if they were to expect another.
“. . .But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent his disciples to ask him: “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?”” (Matthew 11:2, 3)Reply by Fani on 2021-03-26 03:11:00
Il est vrai que les paroles de Jean Baptiste : "devons nous en attendre un autre ?" m'ont laissée parfois perplexe.
Pourtant lui même a dit :
"Pour moi, je vous baptise avec de l’eau à cause de votre repentance ; mais celui qui vient après moi est plus fort que moi, [celui] dont je ne suis pas digne d’enlever les sandales. Celui-là vous baptisera avec de l’esprit saint et avec du feu... il ramassera son blé dans le magasin ; mais la bale, il la brûlera par un feu qu’il est impossible d’éteindre."
C’est moi qui ai besoin d’être baptisé par toi, et toi, tu viens à moi ? ”
Que prêchait il?
" En ces jours-là, Jean le Baptiste vint prêcher dans le désert de Judée, 2 disant : “ Repentez-vous, car le royaume des cieux s’est approché"
Il prêchait bien la venue du Royaume de Christ. Ses disciples n'ont été que temporaires avant que le Christ vienne. C'est la raison pour laquelle les disciples de Jean se sont fait baptiser après au nom du Christ et ont reçu l'esprit saint.
Jean dit :
Jean 3 : 30" Je ne suis pas le Christ, mais : J’ai été envoyé en avant de celui-là
Jean 3:30,33
[30]Il faut qu`il croisse, et que je diminue." Puis il enseigne ses disciples que
[35]Le Père aime le Fils, et il a remis toutes choses entre ses mains
[36]Celui qui croit au Fils a la vie éternelle; celui qui ne croit pas au Fils ne verra point la vie, mais la colère de Dieu demeure sur lui."
Par ces paroles Jean dirige ses disciples vers Christ, jamais vers lui.
Ils sont appelés disciples de Jean parce que c'est lui qui les baptisait (pas en son nom mais pour la repentance) mais je ne connais aucun verset qui dit que Jean attirait les personnes vers lui.
Ce qu'il prêchait contredit cette idée.
Leur conversion s'est faite par étape. Jean "a frayé le chemin devant Christ". Malachie 3 : 1
C'était une préparation qui les mènerait au Christ.
Jean n'a pas tracé un chemin pour lui-même.
Il a toujours attiré l'attention de ses auditeurs vers Christ ainsi certains disciples de Jean ont pu plus tard identifier le Christ.
Jean était le précurseur de Christ, son messager selon Malachie 3 : 1. Dans Mathieu 11 : 10 Christ lui même dit que c'est son messager.
Comment ne pourrait on pas qualifier Jean de disciple de Christ s'il est son messager ?
"Doit il en attendre un autre ?"
Peut-être pose t'il la question pour répondre à des interrogations de ses propres disciples, pour qu'il n'y ait aucune ambiguïté pour ses disciples.
En effet, quand il fait poser la question par ses disciples, Jean était en prison et allait mourir et ses disciples devaient être un peu perdus. (comme l'ont été les disciples de Christ lors de son arrestation)
Ainsi Jean pouvait rassurer ses disciples et les diriger plus clairement vers Christ.
Je ne crois pas que Jean lui-même avait un doute sur l'identité de Christ car cela viendrait en contradiction avec ce qu'il prêchait.
Quoiqu'il en soit Christ lui répond en disant par ses disciples qu'il accomplit des miracles ce qui va lui confirmer et surtout le confirmer à ses disciples qu'ils ne doivent pas en attendre un autre. Jean peut partir. Christ est là.
On ne peut pas dire que celui qui a déclaré : "Celui qui croit au Fils a la vie éternelle; celui qui ne croit pas au Fils ne verra point la vie, mais la colère de Dieu demeure sur lui." n'est pas un chrétien.
Mais je crois que tout ça est une histoire de mots sans importance.
Nous sommes d'accord sur qui était Jean et qui était Christ.
C'est l'essentiel.
Comment by Domine Ivimus on 2021-03-25 04:29:56
I have thought a lot about this over the past few days. I am inclined towards the belief that my JW baptism is not valid as it is not in line with early Christian baptism, although I am still thinking it through.
Back at the beginning it would have been quite straightforward. Believers would have been baptised by the person who taught them about Jesus, or one of their companions. This applies from the mass baptisms in early Acts, to Cornelius and his family (maybe in a Roman bathtub!) and of course to the Ethiopian.
Now that Ethiopian would have returned to his land, spread the good news, and baptised new believers, then they would have done the same and so on.
But after a while things went seriously wrong, and we end up today with thousands of factions of "Christianity" believing different things, yet claiming to have the truth. So for me, that chain of baptisms has been broken, and if I now want to be baptised again because I feel my previous baptism was not done correctly, my problem is who do I turn to?
I understand the point about John the Baptist, yet we have the example in Acts of the disciples in Ephesus who hadn't received the Spirit because they had only received the baptism by John. Once they were baptised again in the name of Jesus, by the ones who they learned the new truths from, they received the Spirit.
So fast forward to today, let's suppose I have a form of worship, but now learn a more correct understanding through articles and videos produced by a Christian thousands of miles away, who do I get to baptise me? A Christian, and far be it from me to judge who is a Christian or not, but I would at least want them to be more or less on the same page as me.
So let's say I eliminate those who believe that Jesus was Almighty God in the flesh, and those that believe he came into existence when Mary gave birth to him, and those that don't have a problem going to war..,... Suddenly I find I am running out of options.
Not an issue in early Christian times, but I believe a lot if us are now coming to accurate understanding through the internet. We don't have that personal contact anymore.
Yet Jesus and the apostles' words keep ringing in my mind - get baptised in the name of Jesus Christ.
I will keep praying about this, but please let me know what you thinkReply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-25 10:21:14
You have to work within your own conscience. Just bear in mind that this is all deductive reasoning. There are no specific rules laid down in the Bible about qualifications for those performing baptisms.
Comment by oneapart on 2021-03-25 23:55:53
Eric, it's Angela here.
Before your video I had not heard anyone teaching that Matthew 28:19 was spurious, nor anyone teaching that you do not need to be baptized "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". (I understand some judge 1 John 5:7-8 spurious though, for the same reason.)
However, in my own bible study I know that at Acts 8:14-17 (BLB):
"...the apostles... they prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit. For He was not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit." — Berean Literal Bible
I understand the recorded fact that "they had ONLY been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" compelling — what other name, according to scripture, should they have been baptized in order to receive the holy spirit?
I believe we have that answer recorded by Matthew 28:19.
In your perspective or teaching was the "only in the name of the Lord" added to the account at Acts 8 support the trinity also? If so, why did they not also spuriously add a reference to the name of the Father's in their editing scripture for the trinity doctrine in this verse?
Assuming the account of Acts 8 was not modified by men with their own agenda, we learn if someone has been baptized in the name of the son, our Lord Jesus Christ, then they may have the holy spirit through means other than being re-baptized. I believe it also teaches us, here and in other verses referring to baptism, that the name that is critical to our baptism is "our Lord Jesus". (Compare Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:1-6)
For Jehovah's Witnesses whether or not their baptism lives up to the bible standard depends on what year they were baptized because they keep changing the 'dedication vows'. Attempting to be baptized as I learned in the Bible, I ended up (1) "dedicated to Jehovah to do his will" (2) "On the basis of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ" (which is not in his name, you could just 'in a sacrifice') and (3) "in association with God's spirit-directed organization" (which is not 'holy spirit' but an organization, spirit-directed, but not holy spirit directed, replacing the holy spirit with an organization).
I was Biblically baptized recently, for I know the reputation of the god Jehovah as completely different than my God in scripture (how they handle child sexual abuse, for example, indicates two different god's and two different reputations) and for the fact that Jesus and holy spirit were entirely left out as well. Unintentionally, I was dunked to 'vow' myself to "Jehovah's will".
Eric, you taught,
“there is a strong body of evidence that indicates that verse was added by a scribe in the 3rd century to bolster belief in the Trinity since no manuscript from before that time contains it.”
The 3rd century AD was the period from 201 to 300. What manuscripts do we even have from the first and second centuries from Jesus death in 33 AD to 200? There are only two:
Fact: We have no manuscript of Matthew 28 that was written in the first, second, or third centuries!
As for the teaching that Matthew 28’s “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” was spuriously added in the 3rd century, we have the tradition to look back to as recorded by others alive and writing at the time, though not scripture:
Ignatius of Antioch (ca. AD. 107-112) in the “Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians” attests,
“…in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
And again in chapter 2 regarding “Unity of the Three Divine Persons”:
“Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to “baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour.”
Justin Martyr testifies to his own baptism.
“Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit… (Justin Martyr, 1st Apology ch. 61, dated to between AD 155-157)
Irenaeus, another 2nd-century Christian author, wrote:
“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3 ch. 17.1, c. 175-185)
Tertullian (ca. 160-220) quotes the verse (Tertullian The Prescription Against Heretics):
“Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.””
Again, “Tertullian on Baptism” quotes it again in the “Meaning Contained in the Baptismal Formula” attesting “faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains.” And again in “Chapter XIII.-Another Objection: Abraham Pleased God Without Being Baptized. Answer Thereto. Old Things Must Give Place to New, and Baptism is Now a Law.” he argues quoting the verse:
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
Hippolytus (ca. 170-236) in “Against Noetus” reasons:
“The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. … The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Cyprian (ca. 200-258) in “The Seventh Council of Carthage: On the Baptism of Heretics” also refers to Matthew 28:19:
“And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:18-19”
Eusebius often cites the form: Contra Marcellum I.1.9; I.1.36; Theologia III. 5.22; EpCaesarea 3 (Socrates, Eccl.Hist 1.8); Psalms 117.1-4; Theophania 4.8, for example see the “Letter of Eusebius of Cæsarea to the people of his Diocese”.
Lastly, The Didache or or Teaching of the Apostles (see chapter 7), for which new consensus is emerging for a date c. 100 AD, refers twice to the formula.
The fact is that we do not have any real evidence against the authenticity of this verse, and scholarly consensus as well as the testimony and writings of early “church fathers” support it.
To be accurate is not that "no manuscript from before [the third century] contains it” but that we have no manuscripts of this verse at all before the third century.
There is no evidence against the traditional words of Matthew 28:19 discovered in the manuscripts we have to date.
Moreover, Matthew 28:19 is found in every extant manuscript of this Gospel that contains the entire chapter, whether Greek, Latin, or any other ancient language.
I hope this helps in correcting your understanding of the traditional use of baptizing in the name of "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".
Eric, what an incredible point: that making vows (referring to the dedication and vows of the Watchtower) are 'from the evil one'. Incredible truth.
Brother, the blessings upon you helping others see that they may be baptized as the first century Christians, and teaching they they may rely on the promise of scripture, that
"I have written these things to you concerning those leading you astray. And you, the anointing that you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But just as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him." — 1 John 2:26,27 (BLB)
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-26 10:19:48
Hi Angela,
Something to bear in mind is the fact that Acts 8:14-17 isn't referring to the anointing of holy spirit that comes upon all Christians that leads us to the truth and seals us as God's Children, but to the special imparting of the gifts of the spirit such as speaking in tongues. The later only came about by the laying on of hands, or by special manifestations such as happened with Cornelius. However, the fact is that the passage you refer to is consistent with all other passages in NT scripture describing the act of baptizing someone. No one is shown being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit. Only in the name of the Jesus. This is something we can't dismiss, nor can we say that today it would be wrong to baptize someone only in the name of Jesus given the strength of scriptural evidence.
As for the fact that no pre-third century manuscript contains the entire last chapter of Matthew, some speculate that the reason is that the exterior part of a scroll--the last chapter--would be the first to crumble due to being exposed to the elements. Whatever the case may be, it is worthwhile considering arguments for the other side.
Here are two links:
https://www.trinitytruth.org/matthew28_19addedtext.html
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2015/08/matthew-2819-and-1-john-57-spurious.html
Please understand that I'm not saying that Matthew 28:19 is bogus. Just that it could be. However, even if it is accurate, one cannot say that it is a binding rule given the aforementioned evidence from Acts.
Reply by Ilya on 2021-03-26 11:36:51
Ponder…
Please read carefully Romans 6 and especially put your attention on next verses:
3 Or do you not know that all of us who were dipped into the Anointed Jesus were dipped into his death?
4 So we were buried with him through our dipping into his death, in order that just as the Anointed One was raised up from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in a newness of life.
Ponder, can you replace Jesus with or add to Jesus: Jehovah God? holy spirit?Reply by oneapart on 2021-03-27 22:57:50
Hi Ilya, I thought I'd replied, but perhaps it didn't post properly.
I read Romans 6 through as you suggested, and found it ironic it refers to the baptism of water for the repentance of sins and gives us the definition of the symbolism of that act, which begun with the baptism of John.
My question had been about the account in Acts specifically referring to their being baptized "only in the name of the Lord" at Acts 8:16.
It's a biblical question, and not to replace the "name of the Lord Jesus" because "only" implies there would be at least another.
You asked, "can you replace Jesus with or add to Jesus: Jehovah God? holy spirit?"
The Watchtower has replaced Jesus, their current "baptism vows":
- “Have you repented of your sins, dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way of salvation through Jesus Christ?”
- “Do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with Jehovah's organization?”
This is how we have ended up in a discussion of ex-JW's being baptized for the first time according to the bible, "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit".
In the days of Y'shua they were not allowed to use God's name. But by coming in his father's name, literally (as "Y'shua" is the shortened form of "YHWH is Salvation").
So I too have replaced "Jesus" with another name, Yeshua.
But when I was baptized, I was baptized in the name of my Father, and his Son, and the Holy Spirit, without naming any names whatsoever.
What name were you baptized in?
Do you have any thoughts regarding being "baptized with the Holy Spirit"? (Acts)Reply by Ilya on 2021-03-28 06:41:18
Your comment was removed by Meleti Vivlon (Eric). Pls read above.
"This is just a word to the wise. Any comments made on this form should be expressed with respect and consideration for the feelings not only of the person being directly addressed, but for those of everyone else who will read your words"
I was baptized as JW on 19.03.2000 at age 16, and re-dipped as simple christian 25.08.2020 ONLY in the name of Jesus the Anointed One.
Please read more about baptism at www.jw.fail
Reply by Ilya on 2021-03-28 07:23:31
Nowadays it does not matter if it is Jesus or Yeshua, use the one you prefer, no need to be as pharisees :-)
Romans 6 is NOT about John's dipping!!! It is about christian dipping.
To understand the word "baptism" you need to STOP to use it. It is untranslated greek word.
You'll never understand without it meaning of the Jesus' words: "Indeed, I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and how I am distressed until it is finished!" (Luke 12:50)
dip, wash, cleanse, immerse = baptize
Jesus was/is clean and perfect, and already as Aointed One (Christ/Messiah) he told these words. Mmm..?
Key to understand: baptism to be baptized >>> dipping by immerse (for 3 days) >>> The sign of Jonah the prophet. Compare Mark 10:38-39; Matthew 12:39, 16:4; Luke 11:29.
About christian dipping (baptism):
John 3:5 / Matthew 3:11
Yes: baptism in water + baptism by holy spirit >>>
>>> dip in water +
>>> to be cleaned by Jehovah's holy spirit, which we get from Jehovah through Jesus (always and only this way).
See what has happened when first christians were cleansed/baptized by holy spirit:
"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth" (Acts 1:8)
Got power to be Jesus' witnesses!
Simple! Thank you, my Jehovah God and my Jesus Lord & Brother!
Comment by Ilya on 2021-03-26 06:21:11
One more link to research:
https://jw.failReply by oneapart on 2021-03-30 00:44:35
Ilya, I have reviewed your website, and I'll prepare a write-up jw.fail as soon as I am able.
Meanwhile, should you wish to better educate yourself regarding Matthew 28:19 as written in your bible, I have responded on my own website (to preserve my research):
http://obible.org/articles/baptizing-into-the-name-of-the-father-the-son-and-the-holy-spirit/
I find it disconcerting anyone would teach against a command of Christ without evidence.
Bible translations are not manuscripts, and conjecture is not evidence nor fact.
While it seems my sincere questions are being ignored, my question stands regarding Acts 8:14-17 — what name should they have been baptized in other than "the Lord Jesus Christ" in order to receive the Holy Spirit?
“…the apostles… they prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit.
For He was not yet fallen upon any of them, but they had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
— Acts 8:14-17, Berean Literal Bible
Reply by Ilya on 2021-03-30 03:16:33
I have answered yesterday to your questions. See bottom, please.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-30 07:34:44
I think you are assuming that had they been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they would have received the Holy Spirit and thus the laying on of hands recorded in vs 17 would not have been necessary. It that correct?
Reply by oneapart on 2021-03-31 23:45:47
I elaborated more on the meaning of "into" vs "in" in a response below.
"into" at Matthew 28:19 means 'in recognition of' as Brother Franz also taught.
in one Spirit we all were baptized into one body — 1 Cor 12:13, BLB
"in" at Acts 2:38 means 'of that upon which any action, effect, condition, rests as a basis or support; properly, upon the ground of' according to Strong's.
Given someone understands "into" (Matt 28:19) in the same manner as Brother Franz taught, then I move to Acts 19:1-7. They were clearly not baptized "into the name of the Son... and of the Holy Spirit". They hadn't even heard of the Holy Spirit. So, "On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."
Thus, yes, if they had been, at Acts 8:14-17, baptized "into the name of ... the Holy Spirit" or "in recognition of the Holy Spirit" then as it is taught by Peter at Acts 2:38,39:
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise belongs to you...
I do not believe this is an assumption, as I believe this is the story recorded by the Holy Spirit—it is my faith.
For his disciples, Christ "breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
For those at Pentecost, "John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
God, the very One who gives you His Holy Spirit. — 1 Thessalonians 4:8
Jesus taught,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you.
Thus,
Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
It is a separate thing, the laying on of hands, and the effect:
...seven men being well attested, full of the Spirit and wisdom... And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip,... whom they set before the apostles. And having prayed, they laid the hands on them.
One cannot baptize another with the Holy Spirit and fire, but they may baptize "into" as recorded in Matthew 28:19. God sends the Holy Spirit, Christ baptizes.
Timothy was warned by Paul,
Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given you through the prophecy spoken over you at the laying on of the hands of the elders. ...
Lay hands on no one hastily, nor share in sins of others—keep yourself pure.
... I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
As he warned us:
Do not extinguish the Spirit. — 1 Thessalonians 5:19
It is one thing to receive the Holy Spirit, another to receive a gift.
It is one thing to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, another the gifts.
But yes, in short, to be baptized "into ... the Holy Spirit" you receive the promise.Reply by Ilya on 2021-04-01 10:43:48
You still do not understand, Angela. You need to TRANSLATE the word "baptize".
dip, wash, cleanse, immerse = baptize
"Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be dipped in the name of Jesus the Anointed One for forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the free gift of the holy spirit." Acts 2:38
"will cleanse you with holy spirit and with fire" Matthew 3:11
Simple!
Reply by oneapart on 2021-04-01 22:57:47
I did not enjoy being assigned doing research, and I did not enjoy annotating this site.
I did not ask for homework, I asked questions you have not answered.
Here is the review of jw.fail.
http://obible.org/articles/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/jw.fail_en.png
<img src="http://obible.org/articles/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/jw.fail_en.png">Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-04-02 07:48:20
I would prefer that we reserve the comment section for comments, not debates. Debates can create an unpleasant atmosphere for many. If readers of this forum would like to debate a subject, I would ask them to open a discussion on discussthetruth.com. Thank you.
Reply by oneapart on 2021-04-03 12:11:04
Thank you, will do.
Comment by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-27 10:19:54
This is just a word to the wise. Any comments made on this form should be expressed with respect and consideration for the feelings not only of the person being directly addressed, but for those of everyone else who will read your words. The Spirit of Christ, not the spirit of contention nor of self-righteousness, should be pervasive in all our words. If a comment doesn't meet this criteria, it will be removed. Likewise, any comment that uses logical fallacies will be deleted. This means no ad hominem attacks.
Also, given the damage we have seen caused by lies that are freely published in the media, the management of this website reserves the right to delete any comment it feels is teaching something false.
Those who claim this is censorship live under the presumption that they not only have a right to their opinion, which they absolutely do, but they have a right to express that opinion to whomever, wherever, and however, they wish. That would be treading on the rights of others.
I may claim the right to say or write anything I wish. But I have to acknowledge that everyone else in the world has the right to ignore me.
If you feel that your views are being suppressed by this, then realize that the Internet provides you freedom of expression to a great degree. Start up your own website or YouTube channel whereby you can freely express your views.
If I make a mistake in something I say or write – and this goes for anyone else who offers articles on the site or makes comments for that matter – I welcome correction. But if that correction doesn't come out of a loving heart, but rather a contentious spirit, it makes it hard to accept. Nevertheless, if truth is spoken, truth will be accepted. However if opinion is spoken, or if the writer does not accept correction for his or her errors in reasoning in the same way they expect others to accept being corrected by them, then again, it's a big Internet. Go in peace.
Comment by Donna on 2021-03-27 12:34:15
I don’t quite understand this about baptism I thought that since I was baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness I am baptized in Jesus name am I incorrect in thinking this please help and thank you
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2021-03-27 19:38:35
It is really a matter of conscience. You have to decide what feels right for you.
Reply by oneapart on 2021-03-27 22:51:43
Hi Donna, you asked,
I was baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness I am baptized in Jesus name am I incorrect
I didn't see anyone answer your question. It depends on what year you were baptized on how you were baptized, as the Watchtower of Jehovah's Witnesses has changed their process for baptism multiple times.
You can do a Google search from those changes and the 'dedication and baptism vows' to see what the "vows" were the year you were baptized.
For example, in the most recent set you vow you have "dedicated yourself to Jehovah, and accepted his way" which is the first clause, skipping the rest of the description of his way...
So that's not "in Jesus' name".
In the second clause, you vow "your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with Jehovah's organization."
Again, no Jesus.
Being baptized in "Jehovah's way" isn't the same as being baptized "in the name of Jesus" not even if it says "Jehovah's way (of salvation through Jesus Christ)".
However, you'd have to check your vows based on the year you were baptized.
I hope that helps. There are stories in the new covenant scripture of people who were rebaptized, and why. You'll find those stories of baptism and the holy spirit in Acts.