Special offer for all readers of signposts02

Now this is a scam of such obvious greed and deception that not even FaceLift would attempt to defend it.  In fact this is a scam of the type that A Current Affair would be interested in exposing.   If they chose to do so, they would have plenty of evidence because this video is screening on Channel 9 at 4am each morning.

What is the difference between this presentation and other health and wealth preachers.  Is the difference one of kind or only one of degree?


50 thoughts on “Special offer for all readers of signposts02

  1. Heheh! Professional ‘Christianity’ at it’s best! 0:45

    ” ‘EXPERIANCE’ YOUR MIRACLE!
    CALL FOR THE FREE
    MIRACLE MANNA TODAY!”

    Dumb believers following dumb leaders.

  2. Well, I believe the miracle manna, or miracle spring water comes with a list of instructions that you must follow to the letter if you are to see any change in your life, or divine transfer of money. One of those instructions is to donate money to Peter.

  3. K. E. Hagin slammed this kind of promotion. Others do too. The Catholics offer relics in similar ads in the Philippines, so it’s not confined to so-called ‘health and wealth’ ministries. I’ve always said it’s deplorable to practically beg for resources or deceive people into financing TV ministries. If they can’t pay their TV bills ministries should find other means if reaching people.

    I don’t know why you imply I defend scammers.

  4. This is hilarious! Its hard to believe people actually get taken in by this.

    Here’s a link that shows one of the letters sent. The letter was for a previous Popoff promotion, giving away miraculous spring water.

    http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/popoffback.html

    There is an emphasis on numbers again, that reminds me of Steve Munsey. At least this time the amount requested was small. I wonder if the requests increase if you respond, since it seems a dialogue is being entered into.

  5. Popoff has been busted before:

    “Suspecting that Popoff’s hearing aid was really a radio receiver, Randi got a private investigator to bring a scanner and tape recorder to the faith-healing sessions. The scanner picked up Popoff’s wife, Elizabeth, calling, “Petey, can you hear me?” and reading information audience members had written on “prayer cards” or mentioned to ushers.

    On the Tonight Show, Randi showed a clip of Popoff appearing to get an inspiration about a “Harold” in the audience. “Cataracts,” Elizabeth relayed. “God is going to burn those cataracts right off your eyes!” Popoff thundered. “Popoff says God tells him these things,” Randi quipped. “Maybe he does. But I didn’t realize God used a frequency of 39.17 megahertz and had a voice exactly like Elizabeth Popoff’s.”

    Within months, Popoff was bankrupt.
    – Source: Portrait: James Randi: Schooled not to be fooled, U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 26, 2002”

    http://www.apologeticsindex.org/487-peter-popoff

  6. Facelift said “I don’t know why you imply I defend scammers.”. Well you have defended Benny Hinn and Copeland before, so what is the main difference that makes Popoff so indefensible. Is it a matter of degree, or is there something that makes him a different kind of preacher?

  7. I beg your pardon! I have never defended either Hinn or Copeland. Show me where I have. In fact I’ve given reason why I have some reservations about both ministries on S2 & S02.

  8. Correction. I think I put up a link to a Copeland issue where someone said Copeland accused doctors of being of the devil, which I showed was patently wrong. But that was an accurate and clearly defined defence. Those who were shown to be in error have still failed to apologised for being wrong.

    I don’t think that a proven defence of anyone is unacceptable. Making defamatory remarks about ministries is unwise and unnecessary, especially without concrete evidence.

    Otherwise I have said I have reservations about some of the things he teaches. But anything I agree or disagree with I have given evidence for. Why do you make the assumption, then, that I defend a scam, when, in fact, I show the people concerned to not be scamming?

    If you prove a scam I’ll back you, but if you speculate and I have evidence you’re wrong, I may choose to challenge you. Is that wrong?

  9. You defend ministries by pointing out supposed errors in the analysis of their critics. You demand extremely high standards of proof for the claims of the critics, but leave the claims of the ministries completely unchallenged. You also argue by appealing to consequences, by giving subtle warnings about the health or well-being of the critics, eg. when someone criticised a Hinn show you speculated about their future health.

    Here is an example from signposts2 :

    ———————————————————————————–
    FL:

    The danger, as I see it, with this kind of critical assessment is in its inaccuracy, and the tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That is to say, there is a correct teaching on prosperity in Biblical terms, but the continued emphasis on the incorrectness of some ministries will potentially divorce the Church from God’s purposes.

    Lance:
    What I love about you Facelift..and every Pentecostal…is here is a clear case where a woman (Cindy Fleenor in this case) has been defrauded of a considerable amount of money by Pentecostal preachers..and you couldn’t give a stuff.

    FL:
    Reread the comments I made, Lance, and learn something for a change.
    Open your eyes. I don’t deny a problem, but point out another, which you could be perpetuating.

    ———————————————————————————-

    You deflect the argument away from the actions of the preacher, more toward detailed analysis of every doctrinal or financial claim of the critic. You turn the analysis away from the minister and shoot the messenger.

  10. Wazza,

    In the spirit of our new administrator I say look at the speck in your own eye first. You also have made allegations on Signposts2 that could not be supported. I recall you claiming FaceLift was the black night from “Monty Python’s Holy Grail” in attempting to defend the indefensible with no weapons.

    This injustice must be redressed as when FL argues for Copeland et al with such smokescreens he is clearly taking on the role of Mr Wedneslydale from the “Cheeseshop sketch”.

  11. “I recall you claiming FaceLift was the black night from “Monty Python’s Holy Grail”…”

    Hehe! That’s gold Wazza. If you called me that, I would have taken it as a compliment.
    Bear in mind that people change too. The more I see FaceLift defend his views (either wrong or right), he is not afraid to argue to the end. He is persistent, strong in his convictions and either willing to learn; or willing to prove that His convictions on certain truths are true. Sometimes I write things that probably make FaceLift shake his head or laugh at me in disbelief.

    This reminds me. FaceLift, I might get angry with you on some of your views and certain doctrine, but please don’t EVER think that I hate you. I actually hold you in high regard as a person, just that I am aware that I don’t always show it. I enjoy a good heated discussion and you leave me intrigued as I try to understand some of your perceptions. Your views and odd insights into things really help me not only understand what you think, but what other Christians also see. You cease to amaze me with your persistence, bullet proof heart and convictions. I’m learning from you and you’re learning from me. And in the end, that’s all it should be.

    My favourite thing about you is that you have a way of rubbing people up the wrong way. I think that’s what makes me like you the most. I find it incredibly funny. Don’t mind me. Iron sharpens iron.

  12. I’d forgotten I’d made the Black Knight claim. Don’t get me started on the Monty Python analogies or you wont stop me.

    Q: How many computer nerds does it take to recite a Monty Python sketch?
    A: All of them

  13. “How many computer nerds does it take to recite a Monty Python sketch?”

    OK. You got me 🙂

  14. wazza2,
    ‘when someone criticised a Hinn show you speculated about their future health’

    Wow, I would have to repent if you can prove I even implied that. I would never deliberately say someone’s health is in jeopardy if they criticise Hinn, or anyone for that matter. What’s that? Touch not the anointed doctrine? I don’t believe in it, not in the way you bandy it about, anyway.

    Can you show me that comment? I can only remember saying Hinn’s doctrine is up the creek in some areas, and that I’m not a big fan.

    I would have to have that claim shown here. I will apologise unreservedly if you can show it.

    And the context of what i said to Lance. Do you have the reference I gave?

    How do you download S2 stuff?

  15. I have a personal copy of Signposts2 on my PC that I took before it went away.

    We were discussing David Millikan and Greg Tooheys attempted stunt to expose Hinn. Here is an extract :

    ——————————————————————

    NoComment :
    It will be interesting to see what happens to Toohey, healthwise, in the future.

    wazza2:
    ….
    What did you mean re the comment about Toohey’s health? It was stated in the article that there was nothing wrong with his health at present. Do you mean it might take a turn for the worse?

    You made an argument that the Holy Spirit was present and Tooheys claims of sickness were lies.


    NoComment:
    Now you know what happened to a couple of people in the book of Acts when they conspired to lie to the Holy Spirit.

  16. Ah, yes, I remember, in regard to Toohey’s pretence to be paralysed and wheelchair bound.

    What was it? Oh, yes, he was with his mate Millikin, who pushed the perfectly healthy Toohey, in a wheelchair, into the wheelchair section of a Hinn meeting, and pretended to rise to his feet and be ‘miraculously’ healed, so that he could get on stage and confront Hinn.

    My comment was more in regard to Toohey and Millikin, and the way they seemed to be tempting God.

    Or do you think it’s acceptable for Millikin, a Uniting Church minister, to be involved in a stunt like this? Do you think there’s an element of tempting God, even though you don’t regard Hinn very highly. I am interested to se how they go in the future. Hopefully, for them, God’s mercy will override their stupidity.

    Toohey I can understand being brash with this stunt, but surely Millikin should have known better. And for what? A beat up of a story no one remembers but you!

    This had nothing to do with the ‘touch not mine anointed’ controversy, or me personally wishing evil on either because they confronted Hinn in such a blatantly ignorant and fraudulent way.

    It seemed to me at faining miraculous recovery for the sake of a false story was tempting Christ somewhat, that’s all.

    The interesting part of this entire event is that Hinn wasn’t fooled at all. He layed hands on Toohey, and Toohey, speechless, went down under the power before he had any opportunity to say anything. Maybe that was, thankfully for them, the end of it. Millikin then had the afrontery to claim the ‘minders’ pulled Toohey down!!

    Try it sometime with an unwilling person with another motive. It’s very hard to push or pull a big man down.

    Dumb and Dumber!

    Using ‘evidence’ from S2 is a little suspect, since Lance wiped it, and we don’t all have access to everything which was written, or to the context of events, so you have me at an unfair advantage with this.

    It will be interesting to see how you use it against me or anyone else in the future.

  17. Hmm… Popoff also mentions ‘God is no respector of persons’.
    In another post, Facelift used it on me too. It sounds like it has been coined in the pentecostal community to mean something it’s not supposed mean.

    I’ll have to check up on it. I thought Paul’s use of it was quite directed in making a strong comment about leadership or man’s desperate approval to seek God’s blessing by being recognized through their titles.

  18. In Acts 10, God spoke to Peter, despite his former prejudice and resistance, about allowing the Gentiles in so they could be saved as well as the Jews, and Peter remarked that he, at last, understood that God was no respecter of persons.

    In other words, God will not refuse entry to anyone. The blood of Jesus had paid the price of the sin of the whole world.

    I never used this truth ‘on you’, s&p. I shared it with you.

  19. Oops! Sorry facelift. Through the written form, it didn’t come across that way. It felt pointed. I take it back.

  20. No worries, s&p!

    The thing is, if God is no respecter of persons when it comes to salvation faith, then surely he would put his saving faith in everyone, and all would be saved. I think hat was the point I made in using that scripture.

    I don’t think that links to Popeye!

  21. Ez4:9 “Take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them in a storage jar and use them to make bread for yourself. You are to eat it during the 390 days you lie on your side. 10 Weigh out twenty shekels [a] of food to eat each day and eat it at set times.

    -“Freak me out; an exceptionally bizarre teaching- FREE!”- good spotting the details of the scam Wazza.-Great Exposure story Ravingpente- great dialogue above, even Facelift & Wazza.

    So, if Hinn is a fraud, how does the Holy Spirit come to help him?

    [not that Im saying he is one!]

    I had a great discussion with a prominent Theologian about this problem, and he believed that God will give ‘a measure’ of power through the Holy Spirit for all those who wish to take the ‘King’ position just as Israel had submitted herself to Saul, etc.- this then, concluded my friend, is why the ‘Big spiritual leader’ is given power by God when many followers support him/her.’

    – I had never heard of such a teaching before, but if true, explains alot about the wonders that happen even when the godly servants are deemed ‘faulty’ by some…..- ‘God-turns-up’.

    So then, “let God be proved True, and every man a liar”[Rom3:4]

    Z.

  22. Zeppelin said:
    “So, if Hinn is a fraud, how does the Holy Spirit come to help him?”

    Two answers:
    1. It’s possible he operates in soul power. (Which I would hate to think he does!)
    2. God gave him the gift of healing. Hinn is choosing to abuse the gift God has given him. But we must not forget that God does not take back the gifts he gives people. So it’s God that is healing people through Hinn, but it is God that is calling people out of His ministry.

    I’ve seen God do that to certain peoples coming out of certain ministries or ceasing to practice un-biblical works. Out of these two options, I believe the second. There’s probably a third reason. God probably has his own answer.

  23. There was a report of a pastor’s daughter massively injured in car accident, being healed in a Hinn meeting some years ago during an AOG conference. What do you put that down to? Here’s a possible answer:

    ‘…Hinn has no healing power’

    That I agree with. Only God can heal. But he’ll use he foolish, the base and the despised. Interesting that!

  24. FL: “There was a report of a pastor’s daughter massively injured in car accident, being healed in a Hinn meeting some years ago during an AOG conference. What do you put that down to?”

    Substantiated reports with medical files and all? Or people saying something happened. If BH is a fraud then someone claiming he is not is not proof. There have been lots of reports of healing.

  25. BH being Ps Hinn, not Ps Houston I presume. The initials are the same. Whatever he may or may not do, I haven’t heard of Brian Houston conducting the kind of show that Hinn does. Hinn is in a league of his very own.

  26. RE: The War Against Hillsong and Other Dodgy Teachers

    What I find in the larger Church at the moment, the issue is not about greed, or money or power – it’s a problem that has its root in ‘anti-intellectualism’ and/or ‘anti-theology’ paradigm.

    From Hillsong to WOF and extending to ‘independent’ and unaccountable Christians such as Ian Vincent in India (who posts at GroupSects), this paradigm leads to an underming and rejection of quality theological training with consequences that range from dodgy teaching from the pulpit (and on the Internet) – and a lack of discernment of their adherents.

    The funny thing is that it is so easy to expose these people – and then they will hide behind controlled ‘spin and rhetoric’.

    In the case of Hillsong – it’s the PR machine.

    In the case of the minor league cult leader like Ian Vincent, who writes with a disdain for theologians and asserts that ‘Infant Baptsim is a Lutheran heresy’ – then when pressed a solid case for Infant Baptism (orthodox doctrine) and asked questions starts
    1) Changing his own (previous) comments to suit his agenda’s,
    2) Blocks/deleting any responses that I have made – and also cuts and pastes sections from comments caught in moderation and taking them out of context
    3) Engaging in Character assassination labeling me ‘a dipstick’, ‘intellectually dishonest (lying)’ and inferring that my argument is the “Doctrine of Demons” and from “the slippery serpent”

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/interesting-interaction-a-theologian-meets-paul/#comment-877

    Ian also claims accountability for teaching on his site

    “Accountability

    I submit the writings on this website to the true Church worldwide for testing, as an equal brother amongst brothers, a sinner saved by grace: saved by Jesus.
    Gifts are a stewardship for which we need to give an account of one day. I will invest whatever gifting the Lord Jesus has entrusted me with in His Church, and not bury it in the ground, or hide it.

    One good thing about the internet is that it helps to keep us accountable : as everything that we are saying and sharing is out there in the public domain to be scrutinized by anyone : we are saying nothing in secret. Just as our LORD did. There is no hidden agenda. What you see is what you get!”

    However – when the rubber hits the road, like any independently spirited cult leader, Ian will do the dishounable thing and hide the truth from his adherents.

    Here is a copy of the full comments that I recently posted on his Blog:

    ——————————————————————————————————
    Ian,

    I cannot believe that you are changing your comments, whilst putting words into my mouth and not letting me respond – and you have the audacity to call me ‘intellectually dishonest’ and infer that what we teach is of ‘the slippery serpent’.

    You are behaving in a way that is similar to the leaders of such groups as PottersHouse, and Hillsong.

    You are not allowing your teaching to be held accountable to the wider body of Christ as you so openly declared under ‘accountability’ on this Blog.

    ‘Infant’ Baptism is a definite when the child’s faith is nurtured and that child continues to abide in Christ. This is no different from the ‘Born Agaian’ adult who is Baptised. How many people do you know that are radically saved and Born Again – and then ten years later they have wandered so far away, maybe under persecution (or even rejected Christ outright) – are they still saved?

    As I said yesterday in the comment that salvation is talked about in three tenses – “You Have been Saved”, “You are being saved”, “(So that) You will be saved” by St Paul in the New Testament. Why the ambiguity?

    “”For the promise is unto you AND TO YOUR CHILDREN and to that entire are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” (Acts 2:39)

    What Promise was St Peter talking about?

    As for Children NOT Baptised – I do not know. I have always said that the scriptures are silent on this matter. As you alluded to yourself with your comment regarding judgement and the lake of fire – we humans are far from understanding the perfect justice of God.

    What we do know is that Children who are brought into a covenant relationship with Christ have the assurance of salvation – like their Parents when they continue to abide in Him. This is quite clear. Christ has come to redeem all of creation – Children are part of creation and are in need of redemption.

    PS Were you ‘Halieus’ in Phil bakers blog?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Ian, you have no ‘Net cred’ any more. What are you hiding? Are you scared of the Truth? Scared of engaging in open discussion? BTW I have all of my original comments in soft copy.

    As I commented yesterday mate:

    Ian,

    Respectfully, you are no different from a Brian Houston or any other ‘Pastor/teacher’ that I have come across who refuse to openly discuss issues that deviate from orthodox teaching.

    The scriptures plainly teach of our salvation is secured by faith alone, and we are commanded to Baptise as part of that process. The Bible also talks of salvation in terms of past, present and future tenses … can you not tolerate such ambiguity?

    I thank God that I am part of a Church, whose Pastors will go through several years of solid practical and theological training in area’s such as the Scriptures, the Greek and Hebrew, hermenutics and exegesis and are willing to be open with discussion about what they believe, honest enough to say they do not have an answer when they don’t, humble enough to tolerate some level of ambiguity where necessary.

    Your views are unorthodox, – and maybe you need to consider that your lack of theological training coupled with a lack of willingness to explore orthodox views and deeper theological concepts- as well as your disdain for theology which has (ie. who made the decision to include and exclude the books of the Bible – it did not come to the Church as a leather bound book by express post? – It was theologians).

    Worse still, you undermine orthodox teaching – and are a stumbling block to those in the faith.

    C’mon Ian, it’s time to mature in your faith and give up you sectarian views that ultimately hinder the progress of His kingdom. You may well be rejecting core elements of the Gospel and the commands of Christ himself by acting as a stumbling block for people of faith.

    Please consider getting some good solid theological training if you wish to be considered a teacher in His Kingdom. You will be held accountable for what you teach.

    My prayers are with you, you family and those few people who adhere to your unorthodox teaching.

  27. Well, you can baptise infants in water all you want, and for a certain time, as with all infants, baptised or not, God’s grace covers them, and Christian parents’ faith, if they are believers, covers them, but ultimately infants, as they grow up, will have to hear the gospel preached, believe in their own hearts and make confession with their own lips. Sprinkling in a font alone is not enough. The confession of priest or a parent is not enough. Water baptism should follow conversion.

    For this reason I believe infants who die before they are of an age to accept Christ will be received to Christ at the resurrection.

  28. I agree with LF that we do see a disdain for quality theological training in some circles, and this is probably a reaction to the arrogance with which some theologically trained ministers have treated those who disagree with them on certain issues.

    Its also interesting that you can come up with very thorough theological arguments about some issues, and witness completely opposite stances in some areas, with apparently solid theological back up.

    I came from the Anglican church and was baptised as an infant, confirmed etc, then later decided to be baptised as a young adult, as for me that was an expression of obedience to scripture. I would never reject my brothers and sisters who believe infant baptism fits the bill, though my own stance is now different.

    It was fascinating later to have the case for infant dedication put to me, and I was told it was ‘appropriate’ to have my children dedicated. While I have no issue with people dedicating their children, I chose not to – I did not believe it was necessary in scripture. Yet it was put to me in the same fashion that the Anglicans put infant baptism forward as a necessary thing.

    Anyway, I am endeavouring to bring my kids up to know our Father, and when they are old enough to make their choice, they can choose to be baptised. However, all the arguments for the different positions have been put with much effort at scriptural authority. In its way, it is quite entertaining.

    Also, while I agree with FL about infants being received by Christ, I find his use of the word ‘cover’ interesting – as that alludes to another area of so-called theology which is very disputable. (I’ve disputed that here, and FL agreed, so I assume his allusion to covering theology is not intended in that way.) Covering theology is a great example of theology with _no_ rigour whatsoever.

  29. RP and FL, I agree that both sides can put forth a solid case – and ultimately it is a matter of conviction (Rom 14).

    However, I detest people making public statements that this (infant baptism) is heresy and not having the courage or the discipline accept that it is based on a solid case or as Ian Vincent puts it “a doctrine of demons”.

    This is my latest comment that did not make it through on his ”accountable’ blog:

    ——————————————————————-

    ——————————————————————-

    Fresh Comment to Ian Vincent (Independent ‘Christian leader’ and teacher ) who does not allow challenges to public statements he has made on his Blog:

    http://ianvincent.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/interesting-interaction-a-theologian-meets-paul/#comment-877

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Ian,

    You have been dishonorable and deceitful – editing my comments and disseminating you message in the same contrived way as does the Hillsong PR machine.

    This will have to be taken to other forums that will allow open and honest discussion.

    In response to securing salvation you asserted (for the benefit of you few loyal adherents):

    “Before he (Lionfish) was saying that the baby who is splashed is “eternally grafted into Christ” and “eternally secure”. Now, with no apology, he’s introducing a condition, “…WHEN they continue to abide in Him”.

    This is not True – as my response to your challenge

    “So, this is saying that the baby gets a gift of saving faith when the water is splashed on them, and from that point on the baby has personal faith in Jesus Christ? And, bcos no one can be saved apart from faith, therefore the baby is saved on the basis of his/her own personal faith in Jesus Christ, which was the gift of faith given at ‘baptism’, and immediately is regenerated and born again?

    Is that what you believe LF?”

    I answered:

    ————————————————

    “Yes, like the majority of orthodox Christians throughout history and in accordance with what the scriptures plainly teach, I believe that God through the Holy Spirit can impart or plant a saving faith in an infant – to be regenerated and born again through Baptism (as well as through other means such as through hearing or seeing the the Word preached).

    Of course, this ‘personal faith’ is not at the same level as one would expect of a more mature person – but saving faith has been sown none-the-less. In the same way that one plants a seed it must be sown in good soil and nurtured in order for this faith to grow, mature and bear fruit”.

    ——————————————–

    Please do the right thing and deal with the issue respectfully – as it was you on your Blog who asserted that the Lutheran Church teaches a heresy ie. infant baptism.

    If you are going to make public statements like this – then you are going to have to go the distance.

  30. RP, perhaps the word ‘sanctified’ suits better than ‘cover’, although the concept is perhaps the same.

    “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife. and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by he husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy” 1 Cor.7:14).

    We enjoy child dedication rather than infant baptism, but it would be better called parent dedication, since it really calls on parents to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

    LF, is there still a requirement on baptised infants to confess Jesus as Lord at a later stage, when they understand for themselves the importance of salvation by grace through faith alone?

  31. “LF, is there still a requirement on baptised infants to confess Jesus as Lord at a later stage, when they understand for themselves the importance of salvation by grace through faith alone?”

    FL – Yes, however the foramality will depend upon the denomination and the particular Church. Some Churches have more formal ‘confirmation’ services where the now mature Child will publicly confess their faith and rejection of the Devil to allow them to take communion.

    Others may confess their faith to other Christians in a less formal way.

  32. Cheers, LF, and welcome. That clears one thing up.

    My main concern with ‘christening’, then, would be that it could mislead people into thinking they were saved, and therefore did not need to make any kind of confession of faith at some time when they understood the significance of accepting Jesus as our personal Lord and Saviour, or mislead parents into thinking their now adult sons and daughters were saved even though they have never asked Christ into their lives, and are not living a life which resembles true Christianity.

    I look forward to continuing our debates!

  33. Interesting to see that a thread on ‘Miracle Manna’ can turn into a detailed examination of ‘Infant Baptism’-

    Very Good to see you guys together; ‘ a marriage made in heaven’ one might say!-You guys may make a great search-engine of your own by authoring your own Topical examinations–“hm, what do you think SP?”

    Anyhow, Ive a good day’s work ahead,

    Auf wiedersehen,

    Z.

  34. ”hm, what do you think SP?”

    that will be highly funky.

    Hey Lionfish. I’ve never thought of infant baptising like that before. It’s a beautiful thing to do, but I personally would not like to consider my works to be the one that ‘helps’ people into salvation. I would hope and pray that the Holy Spirit does that rather then me disappointed with my failings.

    To me infant-baptising seems a-biblical, but seeing the scriptures you used were beautiful illustrations in how one should nurture infants I thought was lovely. I s’pose it’s just Christian taste. I knew I didn’t need to get baptised but when I did, it’s a day I’ll never forget.

    The ritual/ceremony of it was indeed beautiful and I remember coming up out of the water seeing the sea was much bluer, the sun much brighter and the beach more yellow. I remember running through the waves and leaping into my father’s arms, smiling and laughing out of joy. Hundreds just saw me baptised and then we had worship on the beach with a guitar.

    If a parent sees it as something as being ‘solely’ for salvation, I’d be concerned for the parents view on doctrine. But if it’s just to see their child flourish in God, then I’d have no problem with it. I wouldn’t have a problem doing it if one thinks it will bring God closer to parents and child. Simply consider the sacred beauty of ceremony.

  35. FL

    You may not be aware, that most Lutheran and other churches that practice infant baptism will have some level of liturgy and Bible readings are a core part of every Lutheran church service.

    In the Liturgy, people will confess ‘Jesus as Lord’, repent of their sin, and often recite a creed e.g. Nicene Creed. It is not the answer to the issue, and quite often liturgies can become ‘mechanical and dead – but it also provides a solid backbone to ensure that the ‘essentials’ hearing the Word, confessing Jesus as Lord are not missed.

    BTW: I was talking to my Pastor yesterday who is from eastern Europe. He was baptized as an infant, has never had a ‘born again’ experience – but has loved God all his life – living in relationship with Jesus, He faced persecution and even jail (1/3 of Lutheran pastors were imprisoned throuout the 80’s), His father was a pastor and was persecuted, his great grand father was hung-drawn-and quartered (literally) for his faith. Infant Baptism is a means of Grace entry point into Jesus and his Church. people who are nurtured and mature in their faith will ultimately confess Jesus – and live lives pleaseing to the Lord.

  36. Hi S&S,

    Love the sound of your Baptism. I was baptized as a child and as an adult – though I now understand that the second one may have of been unnecessary. I am in the process of having all of my kids baptised at once (10 years, 4 years, 2years) … I have been a bit slow.

    RE: “It’s a beautiful thing to do, but I personally would not like to consider my works to be the one that ‘helps’ people into salvation. I would hope and pray that the Holy Spirit does that rather then me disappointed with my failings”.

    I would like to respond from a Lutheran perspective on that one – that outlines what we believe on baptism:

    “We also believe on the basis of what the Scriptures say concerning baptism throughout the New Testament that it is a means through which God conveys His saving grace. Lutheran theologians therefore often speak of baptism as “visible Gospel.” God (not human beings) has instituted baptism (Matt. 28:18-20). He has attached His powerful Gospel to the visible element of water and through this, His work, He unites us with Christ and imparts to us His saving blessings. That Baptism is God’s means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6. St. Paul writes, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were bured there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life.” The Greek phrase used here, “by baptism,” is composed of the preposition dia with the genitive case tou baptismatos. Beyond dispute, grammatically Paul is speaking about Baptism as the instrument through which God incorporates people into Christ and His saving work. It is for this reason that Baptism, in Lutheran theology, is regarded as such a precious treasure.
    To be sure, faith alone is the instrument by which we receive the salvation won by Christ. But the Gospel and sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper) are God’s instruments through which He engenders saving faith in us–indeed, a miracle. Thus, there is no contradiction between saying faith alone saves, but that this faith comes to us through means or vehicles. We rejoice, therefore, in the words of the apostle who wrote, “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God….” (Eph. 2:8-9), a precious truth made known to us, as St. Paul further says, “through the Gospel” (Eph. 3:6).

    If one holds that baptism is a good work of obedience done by humans, I can understand how one might think that Lutherans teach that faith alone in Christ is not enough. But this is to fundamentally misunderstand, in our view, how the Scriptures everywhere describe Baptism, that is, as a divine, not a human, work. We reject any implication that baptism is a human work, one that we do in order to earn salvation. On the contrary, we hold that the Scriptures teach that baptism is God’s precious gift through which He works to impart His saving grace revealed to us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who alone is our Savior. In a word, Baptism is a marvelous testimony to the unmerited grace of God.”

    Source: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=4645

  37. Uh-oh, You’re a ‘paster’ too!-[its so weighty-looking it simply MUST be true!-hallelujah!]

    Z…..zzzzzzzz-zzzzzz-zzzzzz

    Please compare the origins of ‘ritual washings’; Essenic & Pharisaic washings…and of course the Baptism of John-thence the Baptism of Jesus; “with Fire & the Holy Spirit”.

    Just for fun, look at the scene from the De laurentis [1967] film THE BIBLE when Abraham walks out of a tent, then glances across to see a man ‘baptising his sons’…..its only a film of course!

  38. Lutheran doctrine,
    “He has attached His powerful Gospel to the visible element of water and through this, His work, He unites us with Christ and imparts to us His saving blessings. That Baptism is God’s means of imparting His grace is especially clear in Romans 6. St. Paul writes, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were bured there with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father we too might walk in newness of life.”

    The problem with this assertion is that it assumes Paul is referring to water baptism in Romans 6, when in fact he is referring to being baptised into Christ at salvation. Compare 1 Cor. 12:12-13a, ‘For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ, for by one Spirit we were all baptised into one body…’

    We were, according to Romans 6, baptised into Christ, and therefore into Christ’s death, and subsequently into his resurrection. The Holy Spirit, at the new birth, baptises us into Christ.

  39. Zeppelin, Are there ‘no pasting’ rules on Signposts2 – that I must abide by? Do you want me to avoid using references for discussion purposes. Was it too heavy? I like reading that stuff.

    Facelift … you are a well read Pentecostal- and you could be right. But so could the Lutheran perspective. Baptism could mean in water equally – John baptized in water in the River Jordan.

  40. LF – I don’t think anyone minds a well chosen pasted article. As long as there are no copyright issues. It’s interesting to see how others argue their case, whether one agrees or not.

    Even if one disagrees, its good to be able to understand opposing points of view.

    Re the infant vs adult baptism – personally I believe it is preferable to be baptised as an adult and see that as closer to what was intended for us as a practice. However – it is a matter of faith, and I’m not going to condemn others who believe and have an arguable case for infant baptism.

    I agree with FL on this one ultimately – that Paul is referrring to being baptised into Christ at salvation. The physical act is an important affirmation of what has already happened in the spiritual. I was certainly ‘saved’ before I chose to be baptised as an adult, regardless of whether I was christened at birth or not. I know I had faith in Jesus. Also, the man with Jesus on the next cross was saved – and did not have the opportunity to express that faith in an act of baptism. So I believe our Father is merciful with respect to our level of understanding, belief and circumstances. Nonetheless, I still see baptism as an important act, whether it is as an infant or an adult – wherever our faith is for that act.

    Along similar lines: I believe that when we are to ‘confess with our mouths’ that Jesus is Lord, this is not referring to an affirmation as we stand up and do so in a church setting, although that literally fulfills the scripture. I believe that the ‘confession’ is one which is an outpouring of what is in our hearts, and is ongoing and daily. If we truly believe in our hearts, we will express it with our mouths. So the confession is evidence of our salvation, rather than something that causes it to happen. If we are truly saved, we truly believe, and we cannot help but confess it. So a ritual is only a shadow of the reality.

  41. I agree that water baptism is important to Christian doctrine, but reading through Acts it is clear that water baptism was subsequent to salvation, ie Acts 10:44-48.

  42. Ok. I seee where you are coming from LionFIsh and FaceLift. I’ll just start a new post where we can discuss baptism rather then having it hear. Then we can discuss it full on and you can keep us updated with this other guys case with you.

  43. Lionfish? Are you out there? I’ve only just seen this thread.

    Lionfish said:

    “…it’s a problem that has its root in ‘anti-intellectualism’ and/or ‘anti-theology’ paradigm.”

    “…From Hillsong to WOF and extending to ‘independent’ and unaccountable Christians such as Ian Vincent in India (who posts at GroupSects), this paradigm leads to an underming and rejection of quality theological training with consequences that range from dodgy teaching from the pulpit (and on the Internet) – and a lack of discernment of their adherents.”

    “The funny thing is that it is so easy to expose these people – and then they will hide behind controlled ‘spin and rhetoric’.”

    “In the case of the minor league cult leader like Ian Vincent, who writes with a disdain for theologians…”

    “PS Were you ‘Halieus’ in Phil bakers blog?”

    What the…?????

    Firstly, no, I’m not Ian Vincent.

    Secondly, why in the world did you think of me, in an argument you had with someone for which you have mutual contempt? Last correspondence I had with you appeared to me to have the hallmarks of mutual warmth and respect?

    I’m perplexed to say the least. The behaviour you describe is so unlike me… I hope… anti-intellectual? anti-theology? Spin and Rhetoric? “These people”?

    What does this mean Lionfish?

Comments are closed.