Of Joseph Prince and “His” defenders

When The Blind Lead The Blind, Shall They Not Fall Into The Ditch?

You may also like to read:

• Joseph Prince Double-speak lies about Holy Spirit
• Caution: "Destined to Reign" by Joseph Prince 
• Joseph Prince of This World 
• Honest Review of "Destined to Reign" 

Do you know why I had put “His” above in a capital letter?  Well, it does look like he is a god and idol to his believers. They will struggle to defend him with drilled-in clichés, and statements.  I see exactly the same behavior in the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons who come to my door.  It is always something like this,

" Noo! you do not seem to understand what he is saying ..." or  "Ohh! you must listen to the complete sermon first". And when you say you have done so, they counter,  "Have you finished listening to the whole series?"

Sounds familiar? That is a standard cult respond technique!  Try talking to any Jehovah Witness and you will know.

I have often been asked about Joseph Prince.  Sandy just did so, too last Thursday.  “What do you think about Joseph Prince”?  And I will usually reply in these terms, “He’s a false teacher.  Be careful.  He mixes truths with untruths, confuses you by saying contradictory things on the same topic in different ways so that you will believe both positions without questioning further”.

Anyway, today while googling for “Ananias” and “Saphira” for information, I came across this blog, Daniel's Place, with this article “Joseph Prince vs the Bible”, which speaks out against his ( small h because Daniel is not his believer ); and this one, A Review Of A Book Review (Destined To Reign), His believer who wrote a well-written doting review of a horrible book.

These are the things that dawned on me about the doting believers in their god:

1)     They do not know how to catch those contradictory positions, because Joseph Prince is a good speaker and masterful with words

2)     They have blinkered understanding of scriptures, their understanding having been confined to what their god has said

3)     They also possess the canned definition of biblical terms and phrases, drilled into their heads by false teachers – not being of the Holy Spirit.

Ananias and Saphira and the Joseph Prince Boo-boo

Let’s talk about Ananias and Saphira ( Acts 5) and see how the defenders defend their mighty god.  On page 57 of his book Destined to Reign ( please don’t buy, just borrow a copy from one of the unfortunate souls who did ), Joseph Prince – an international pulpit speaker with a following of tens of thousands had this to say to the question in italics:

    “But Pastor Prince, didn’t God punish King David for his sin and he lost his child?”

    Don’t forget that David, like Elijah, lived before the cross of Jesus. You will never find an example of God punishing a believer for his sins in the new covenant.  Let’s study the scriptures for ourselves and not just go by what other people are saying.

The above is reproduced without errors and omissions.

Well, he obviously does not read the bible and did not know about Ananias and Saphira episode.  What?? An international preacher who does not read the bible?  Cari makan ma!  (just earning a living ) What a boo-boo for an international bible “teacher”.  Maybe someone has pointed it out to him by now and he is desperately trying, or has given up trying to find a way to properly explain that boo-boo.  Why, even many of the new believers I asked can immediately answer that God did punish Ananias and Saphira under the new covenant.

KingDavid Blog Tries To Rescue His god

Well, Joseph Prince does not have to worry.  His doting believers will come to his rescue!  So here's the idiot well-writen bad review of his god’s book that goes: 

Malcolm has written a good post comparing Ananias of Acts 5 and Ananias of Acts 9, see here.  From the Bible, the Ananias of Acts 9 was descibed as “there was a disciple named Ananias” but the Ananias of Acts 5 was descibed as “But there was a certain man named Ananias who,”  Comparing it side-by-side, the subtle difference is as night & day; a disciple verse a certain man. In addition, notice also the But in Acts 5; that will mean that it is contrasting to a previous subject. So let’s go back to Acts 4, and we see this: For instance, there was Joseph, the one the apostles nicknamed Barnabas (which means “Son of Encouragement”). He was from the tribe of Levi and came from the island of Cyprus. He sold a field he owned and brought the money to the apostles. Acts 4:36-37   The apostles had apparently endorsed this Joseph, thus, I am very certain that Ananias and Sapphira were not true believers. ( Emphasis are mine )

If the above logic is correct, then we must also conclude that when the bible says “there was a certain man”, it is means that he subsequently changed his sex, or that Joseph was Joseph only for a time!  See the semantic inconsistency?  Acrobatics with words. That’s what blind believers and false teachers do.  Idol worshipers argue for the sake of defending their god and idol, not on truth and logic.  The error he made is so bad that his disciple must now twist the scripture to say that Ananias and Saphira are not believers!  How desperate!

KingDavid Blog Makes Another Vain Defence

In the passage immediately following the above, the writer continues, ( in his effort to defend his god’s doctrine of superabundant grace ):

Although a common ideology, I cannot find it anywhere in the Bible that says the Holy Spirit convicts believers of their sin ( emphasis mine ). What I found is this: because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. 1 Thessalonians 1:4 (NIV)  but when I checked the other translation, I like it better: For when we brought you the Good News, it was not only with words but also with power, for the Holy Spirit gave you full assurance that what we said was true.  1 Thessalonians 1:4 (NLT)  The conviction here is actually of comforting assurance, how lovely.

The false teacher does not know, and his believer naturally does not know. And further you marvel at the comments of the readers of KingDavid blog, with their doting comments.  Jesus said, “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?”.

Why did the author of the blog need to make such a fool of himself?  It is because his god wrote in page 134 of that horrible book, Destined to Reign, these words:

The bottom line is the Holy Spirit never convicts you of your sins. He NEVER comes to point out your faults.  I challenge you to find a scripture in the bible that the Holy Spirit has come to convict you of your sins.  You won’t find any.  (Emboldened and CAPITALISED in the original )

Okay-lah then, I meet your challenge-lah!   It is in Joh 16:8-lah, bodoh!:

And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

That is what happens when Christians become followers of man and not God.  Observe that the above review writer is a scripture-quoting Christian who also has an excellent command of the English language.  This is why I say that Joseph Prince is so smooth with his words that he can encourage you to sin on the one hand without you feeling convicted if you agree, then at the same time preach that a true believer will live a holy life.  This is what a false preacher is good at, and fools will come to his defense.

What about LLC

Like others, this fellow is a sincere believer of Jesus, and a Joseph Prince fan.  He struggles to sort out his confused state of understanding, gropes for words to defend his idol and expresses some frustration, demands the writer Daniel refrain from saying certain things,  but finally he came to terms somewhat with the stand of Daniel against false teachings.  I think he able to come to that stage because he has not been mesmerized too much, not being a member of the church of that false teacher.

As for the other defenders of their god, like that guy Phil, I leave you to read his efforts at defending his god for yourself.  He just cannot see through the double-speak preaching of Joseph Prince, slippery and 2-edged.

But Daniel has got it right about Joseph Prince.

A good church is not measured by the size of its membership, the charisma of its pastor, much less the beauty, completeness of facilities and comfort of its building.  It is measured by the truth that it preaches, that does not lead you to stray away from the Lord even as you think you are following Him.  For surely, 

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Your choice.

Jesus says in John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Baptizing For The Dead

 Read Also:

• Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
• Who are the teachers of Baptismal Regeneration? 
• Baptism – Sprinking, Immersion?

OK. This should be my last post on baptism.

The Pagan Western Society

I remember when as a fresh Christian, I was told that it wasn't right to pray to God for the people who have already died.  I was not supposed to pray to the dead, or to talk to them.  You know, when we watch Hollywood movies, we always see these "kwei lo" and "kwei por" talking to the dead, and in those days, I always assume that almost every Westerner is a Christian.  This is because Christianity came to Asia through missionaries from the West.

Of course, those were the days before I found out that the Western society today has become more pagan than the Orientals!  Most of those who claim to be Christians only think they are; the fact is that their lifestyles, beliefs, superstitions and actions reveal that they are not. And so, they celebrate the satanic halloween fest, talk to the dead, consult mediums, consult horoscopes, adopt Hindu practices into their Christianity .... the whole works!

Now, if all the above are pagan, how about baptizing for the dead?

Mormon Do Baptism For The Dead

This photo belongs to www.salamandersociety.com

As far as I know, only cults practise this ritual, the Church of the Latter Days Saints ( LDS), otherwise more commonly known as the Mormons being the most noticeable.  Now, let me first clarify in no uncertain terms that the Mormons are not Christians.  They only pretend to be Christians by claiming so, and pretending to be followers of the bible, when in fact they reject most bible teachings.  They use the same Christian words and terminologies with totally different meanings .... so their Father in heaven, Jesus Christ, baptism, heaven, hell, salvation etc are all totally unrecognizable in the bible, for they adhere to their own Book of Mormons.  The preacher James White had this to say "Islam is closer to Christianity than the Mormons", and that is very true!

But one of the things they zealously observe, which is found in 1Co 15:29 the bible is baptism for the dead.  This is what it says:

"1Co 15:29  Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

So, the Mormons would ask a living person to stand in for someone who had died before joining the Mormon church, thereby making the dead a Mormon eligible for their brand of salvation.  So, do you know that the Mormon church had baptized Genghis Khan, Buddha, Nazi Hunter Simon Weisenthal, and Pope John Paul II posthumously to become members of their church?  Laugh all you want - that is a fact!  This in fact got many people very angry at them for making their dead relatives Mormons without permission, and a class action suit was taken against the Mormon church.  The Vatican was in a huff ovef them, too. 

But what is baptism for the dead?  When Paul wrote on it, was Paul stating a Christian practice of those days?  Why did Paul mention it?  Do the Mormons happen to do something correct which other Christians have all forgotten about?  No.  Please observe that Paul does not say "we" or "you", which would indicate that he was speaking about a Christian practice,  but "they", because it was the pagans,  not Christians who were doing that type of baptism!

The Best Explanation I Know Of

It is my personal belief that Paul did not elaborate more on the matter when he wrote about it because the practice must have been widespread in Corinth at that time, and known to everybody.  The best information I have about it is that, it was a pagan practice.  It wasn't a Christian practice.  Some Corinthian Christians at that time were apparently showing doubts about life after death.  Paul was using the pagan practice to tell them that, "Look, even the pagans who do not know Christ perform baptism for the dead because even the pagans hope that by their actions, they can help their beloved deceased gain eternal life.  So why should you as Christians have doubts?"

So, Paul wasn't encouraging it.  He was merely making a comparison and using the salvation-disadvantaged pagans to demonstrate to the Christians that they have no reason to doubt eternal life.

The Mormons are in fact pagans, with many of their other rituals being very pagan.  Their temple architecture even includes both freemasonry and satanic symbols.  So it is no surprise that they took to the pagan ritual of baptism for the dead so readily and naturally. 

I am glad to note that no other Christian church is known to do this, except cults posing as churches.  Besides the Mormons, two other known cults, New Apostolic Church and the Old Apostolic Church are known to be doing it.  The last one has not entered into Malaysia as yet.

I hope this explanation satisfies your need to know.

Jesus says in John 8:32 "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".

Baptism – Sprinking, Immersion?

Will The "Wrong" Method Send One Into Hell?

Read Also:

• Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
• Who are the teachers of Baptismal Regeneration?
• Baptizing for The Dead 

You may also like to read:

•  Baptismal Regeneration By J. H. Todd

Immersion or Sprinkling?

First, my answer – No. The method shouldn’t matter.  I will explain at the end of this article. 

Overview

That, Jesus commanded baptism is  a fact.  But how it had developed into different methods over the years may be a blur.  I can only make a guess,  and pick up a point or two from research here and there to present an idea.  Even then, not all accounts agree totally.

Now, I bet you never noticed that the bible mentions 3 forms of baptism in at least 6 modes, which I list as:

1)      Water baptisms - ritual

a.   The baptism of John for Jews ( Matt 3 )

b.   The believer’s baptism in the name of Jesus for the Holy Spirit to dwell in him  (Act 19:1-6 )

2)      Non-water baptism - real

c.   The baptism of the Holy Spirit, which comes with power and/or gifts of the spirit ( Acts 2, and Acts 10 )

d.    The baptism of the fire, which you do not want ( Matt 3:11 )

3)      Figurative baptism

e.   The baptism of suffering, or baptism of the cup, which you would love to avoid (Mat 20:22)

f.      The baptism of Moses, which is figurative of identification, oneness with (1Co 10:2 )

All the arguments over baptism is centered on the ritualistic form to be done.  Nobody ever argues about the other 2 forms.  Christians quarrel not only over whether the act of baptism actually washes away sins and saves ( read Is Water Baptism Necessary For Salvation? ), while forgetting the Jesus had no sin, yet He was baptized; but over what is the correct method, as if being baptized with the wrong method will send a person to hell.  Is the Christian God a god of legalism?

Methods of Baptizing

The Lutherans and the Anglicans all do it by sprinkling water on the person being baptized.  Why so?  It is because the Lutherans and Anglicans are direct off-springs from the Catholic Church.  The Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists are in turn Anglican spin-offs, and so how else do you expect them to do it?

Persecution of Christians continue even today.  Just think about Christians in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern churches had probably continued with the tradition of the church of the apostolic age ( no, the Roman Catholics are NOT the original church, it came about long after Emperor Constantine converted ), which had to avoid public attention due to Roman persecution.  In the days of Nero in the A.D.70s  up till the time of Emperor Constantine in A.D.300, Christians were subject to arrest, torture, being crucified, tarred and tied to animal skins to be burned as street lights, fed to the lions. and what have you.  Those were dangerous times indeed.  Christians met underground in catacombs ( underground graves ) and in secret.  So, to my simple mind, it was no big deal that they eventually began to do baptism by sprinkling and not by immersion in the river water.  That would be too obvious and attract too much attention.  And 200 years of persecution is a long time, and is long enough for baptizing with sprinkling of water to develop both as a tradition, a culture and even became a doctrine.

However, some people point out that:

1)           In the Nicean And Post-Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 288, 289., Eusebius, the “father of church history,” was recorded to have related about baptism by sprinkling in 251 A.D., when a sick man, Novatian baptized himself, fearing that he would die unbaptized, an act which Eusebius protested against.

2)           In the Edinburgh Cyclopedia, III, 245-246, it was noted that in 753 A.D. Pope Stephen III legislated baptism by “affusion”, i.e. pouring water on the head “in cases of necessity”, a practice which became known as clinical or hospital baptism (baptismus clinicorun).  Somewhere along the line, “aspersion” or sprinkling of water was introduced, maybe to accommodate the sickly and infants.

3)           Finally in 1311 A.D. a council of bishops that met at Ravenna, Italy voted that either sprinkling or immersion was acceptable.  However, people took to the easier way more readily, rather than having to look for a river or a tub big enough to immerse the person.  ( See Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia, vol. 1 page 488.) 

I personally think that the sprinkling and pouring had developed because of the need to avoid attracting attention due to the fear of persecution and arrests.  It is up to you to believe how these methods had developed.  As far as I am concerned, the methods of baptism developed over the years for reasons of practicality, and is really of no importance at all.  Just good to know.  But it is good to do it in the correct way and original way though, to preserve its history.

How Was Jesus Baptized?

The truth is this.  Jesus was baptized by immersion.  How do I know? The bible makes it so clear!  Note these verses:

Mat 3:16  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:

Rom 6:4  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Col 2:12 "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

Dropping a few drop of water on the head is not symbolic of burial, is it?  Neither does pouring water on the head.  Only total immersion would be able symbolize burial.

So without doubt, immersion would have been the original practice.

What Does History Say?

The thing about the Roman church is that it is so deceptive.  It will admit to something, and then hide the admission and continue doing what it has been doing all the time. Do you know that the Catholic authorities have openly admitted that total immersion was the historical practice?  Confirm these for yourself: (Sourced from Roman Catholic Doctrinal evolution  )

• "Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times." (New Interpretation of the Mass, p. 120).
• "Catholics admit that immersion brings out more fully the meaning of the sacrament, and that for twelve centuries it was the common practice." (Question Box, p. 240).
• "Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years." (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57).

o       "The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring." (Our Faith and the Facts, p. 399).

o       "The present mode of pouring arose from the many inconveniences connected with immersion, frequent mention of which are made in the writings of the early Church Fathers." (Question Box, p 366).

And, on the other side of the fence, one Methodist minister, John R. Church, D. D.  in his article entitled “Why Baptize By Sprinkling”even admits:  

“In our dealing with the meaning of this word, baptizo, we want it clearly understood that we very freely and frankly admit that the classical meaning of this word is usually immerse, dip, plunge or submerge.”

I cannot, for the world see why these people can see the truth, yet refuse do what is right.  And that’s religiosity for you.  Human beings, out of selfishness, power, monetary gain, self-righteousness and pride always want to differentiate themselves from the crowd, and will do all things to make themselves stand out, all the while exploiting the name of God.

Why The Method Of Baptism Is Not Fatal

Do you not agree that it is important that a believer obeys the commandment of Jesus to be baptized?  Baptism is an open declaration of faith and acceptance of Jesus as Lord.  If we deny Him before man, so will He deny us before the Father.

As to the method of baptism, let me point you to the thief at the cross who said to Jesus thus:

Luk 23:42  “Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. “

And Jesus replied:

Luk 23:43  And “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

The thief was even baptized!  He simply declare his belief and Jesus accepted him there and then.  So, what is the big deal about the method of baptism? 

Now, I lead you to another passage, this time written by Paul in the book of Romans:

Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

What does this tell you? Let me rephrase it this way to you.  “For he is not a Christian which is one outward, neither is that of baptism, which is outward in the flesh:  But he is a Christian, which is one inwardly; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Amen.

So, stop all the quibbling and squabbling, you silly Christian leaders!  God is not legalistic.  Do it by immersion by all means, but stop condemning them that want to do it otherwise.  Just lead believers to worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and walk in the spirit before God.

Jesus says in John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."