Sunday, January 11, 2009

Joseph Prince vs. the Bible

Due to the growing popularity of Singaporean home-grown "pastor" Joseph Prince, I have decided to read his book Destined to Reign, which is proving very difficult to read (difficult as in I feel utterly disgusted by it and am feeling very much like puking because of its unbiblical contents). Anyway, here is a VERY interesting quote:

The bottom line is the Holy Spirit never convicts you of your sins (p. 134. Bold original)

Ugh! According to Prince, this is in the context of believers after they have became Christians, not the world. Here is what the Scriptures teach:

[To the Corinthian Christians who were celebrating sin] For even if I [Paul] made you grieve with my letter [1 Corinthians cf 1 Cor. 5:1-2], I did not regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. (2 Cor. 7:8-9)

To this, we can add the case of Ananias and Sapphira (believers) who were literally "slain by the Spirit", not to mention the numerous examples in the Old Testament and the Psalms.

This is all for now. As it is, this statement has moved Prince to the arena of preaching not only a false "gospel", but a false "Holy Spirit" and therefore a false "God". Joseph Prince is therefore not a Christian, fulfilling 1 Jn. 2:19 and Jude 1:4 by his teaching.

70 comments:

ScottH said...

Ugh! is right! Sounds like another "classic" WoF book. BTW has Prince ever had Kenny Copeland speak at his church? It'd be another great vacation getaway in Singapore! Oh! I forgot Kenny only uses his 20 million dollar jet for "ministry" purposes only! He loves to "minister" in Hawaii too! LOL!!

PuritanReformed said...

ScottH:

Well, it is not classic WoF, in the sense that it mixes in more truth with more error in a book. Prince to my knowledge have not had Copeland speak at his church yet, as his focus is being a "grace teacher" more than a "faith teacher". Furthermore, Prince I think would prefer to have the tithes stay in the church rather than pay for Copeland's expensive trip plus "layovers". =P

Isaiah said...

You bought the book?

I'd love to read it, but monetary resources being scarce, I'll pass. I do try to catch a chapter or so for free while browsing the secular bookstores, but I simply cannot stomach what I've read so far.

One chapter in there is titled "God is easy to take from" or something, isn't it? I went "what?!" and threw it back to the shelf.

PuritanReformed said...

Ya, I bought the book- at a discount. If not for the fact that I need it for research purposes, I wouldn't have gotten that bundle of nonsense. I wonder how many trees were sacrificed to print so much junk!

Eh, there isn't such a chapter. The last chapter however is termed "Good things happen", and the beginning sentences are waaayyyy off theologically. Prince is what you get when you add WoF, No-Lordship Antinomianism, and hyper-Dispensationalism and cough up something from the mixture.

Isaiah said...

Hm... it must be from another book of his, then. I seldom notice the book titles.

Hopefully your research will be published and include some quotes from there, e.g. the one you mentioned. It'll make for an interesting "what?!" read, lol!

PuritanReformed said...

Isaiah,

eh, I will do the exposé sometime after March, as I have a deadline to meet.

Isaiah said...

Anytime, mate. I look forward to reading that!

Beng said...

I look forward to reading it as well.

PuritanReformed said...

SB:

how's things going? Haven't heard from you for some time. =P

Beng said...

I'm fine, brother. God is good. Busy with work and some other obligations, which is why I've not been blogging. Whatever precious spare time has been available has been better used reading than writing.

PuritanReformed said...

SB:

that's good. Do you have a Librarything acount? Can see what books you have...

Joel Tay said...

Prince is not just WoF. He is a hyper-Antinomian who by definition of the things he profess, preaches a different gospel from that of Scriptures. He is definitely not Christian and according to the words of scriptures, not Christian. His teaching makes Agricola looks harmless.

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (αναθεμα).

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed (anathema - αναθεμα).

PuritanReformed said...

Joel:

I agree. But yea, an exposé would always be good. =)

Joel Tay said...

We're waiting for your book.

PuritanReformed said...

Joel:

LOL... No time to write any book for now... =)

Phil said...

How can you call Joseph antinomian? Do you remember that Spurgeon quote that was speaking of grace having the sanctifying power, a la the clear sense of Rom6v14? How about where Joseph said it's impossible for abundant grace to leave a person in a state of sin? What's being said is this- Rom1-5 shows that justification apart from works is unconditional and final, and qualifies to all of God's blessings on the principle of faith,not works. And then (Rom6-8),this super-abundant grace is the strength of holiness by the Spirit,for the new heart. Because that new heart has been delivered from relating to God on law-terms which cause the offence to increase,only. Why? because they speak to the self-righteous fleshly heart,who is seeking to make this unilateral covenant work with his own additions to Christ's finished work...he's seeking God's blessing on his performance. Not only does that not get God's blessing for sanctification, the person's performance and heart attitudes get worse because of it (Gal). This isn't true obedience. It's self-righteousness in God's name...If you think that one is against holiness of life because he's against this fleshly submission to law as a rule of life,rather than in the hands of Christ and his Spirit of Grace, I'd encourage you to look again. You did not so receive Christ in the first place. The issue is not 'does genuine faith lead to fruit'. Everyone agrees there. The issue is 'what is the character of the genuine faith that leads to genuine fruit,and how does it do it?' Everyone does not agree here. Some are on the grounds of law again, and some are on the grounds of grace. I.e, we had to be delivered from the principle of law so that we could bring genuine fruit to God-the fruit of genuine love. And this love is the fulfilling of what the law demanded,but can't impart,by the very principle of the thing. It was only intended to stop the boasting of the self-righteous... The reason it can't justify (I know you agree with that statement,in principle),is fundamentally not just because it can't be quantitatively fulfilled, but because it cannot be qualitatively fulfilled by any attempt whatsoever,whoever we are. And the Holy Spirit is not about to help a person find qualitative life by a ministry that was designed to condemn self-righteousness. A minstry that is now obsolete...The reason that Paul was glad that his letter provoked sorrow in Corinth was not for sorrow's sake, and not because the new covenant is a ministry of condemnation, but because their evident lack of appropriation of the ministry of righteousness by faith had left them to the natural consequences of their remaining fleshliness. And that had led them to see the poverty of their flesh and carnal thinking, which served as an expedient for their appropriating genuine grace once more,thus repenting from their fleshliness and its misdeeds. Knowing their riches in Christ. Paul says somewhere that the misdeeds of the flesh are 'obvious'. It doesn't need a revelation of the Spirit to produce guilt on the principle of works. Everyone has that already. The unbeliever is locked up in it until they believe. And it can't lead to genuine holiness, for that is not a works-response to guilt, but a grace-response to guilt cleansed and removed. It takes a revelation of righteousness apart from works, by the Comforter and Advocate from the Father us-ward, to walk with a conscience cleansed from guilt and dead law-works, and reap the benefits for qualitative life and righteousness in the light of 'no condemnation'. Jn16v8-11,2Cor3.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

you have shifted the topc of discussion. The post was about the person and role of the Holy Spirit, not about grace. As such, you missed the point altogether.

With regards to the issue of grace, I will tackle Prince's distortion of grace in my review which I will do in the future. If you want to know why Price is antinomian, I will recommend Jerry Bridges' book Respectable Sins as a good start.

Phil said...

Well, it seems to me that the essence of Christianity is grace, and the minstry of the Holy Spirit in the new covenant is surely concomitant with that. Similarly, that word was used of him, and law-ministry ascribed to the Holy Spirit,likewise...I'm aware of the spectrum of views on sanctification in the the camp called reformed. I've traversed it! One or two quotes I've read from Bridges are,like the Sovereign Grace people, more gospel-centred, but I believe many are missing the true nature of our death and resurrection in Christ a la Gal2v20, and how that's connected to a total death to the law, a la Rom 7v1-6...No need to take a high hand to me, as my teacher. These are matters fundamentally answered by scripture and not our received epistemologies, with a Berean semper reformanda spirit. Thus whether Joseph is classed as antinomian by some doesn't mean much if they do so just because they don't grasp the gospel properly themselves. We have to go deeper than the word. And the problem is when those issues are left untouched, the connotations the word implies slander, and the real issue that pure grace is the strength of holiness, law of sin, is reversed in the name of holiness, I believe.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

>Well, it seems to me that the essence of Christianity is grace

No, the essence of Christianity is Christ, not grace.

>Thus whether Joseph is classed as antinomian by some doesn't mean much if they do so just because they don't grasp the gospel properly themselves

And what is the Gospel? Who is to say whether someone grasps the Gospel or not?

>We have to go deeper than the word

Do you believe that the Word of God is therefore insufficient for Christian doctrine and living? How then can you believe in the Scripture which claims to be sufficient/ competent (Greek artios) for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17)?

>and the real issue that pure grace is the strength of holiness

May I know where that is found in the Bible? Chapter and verse please?

Phil said...

Daniel, please show more quickness to listen and a slowness to impute sin and misunderstanding...and please forgive me for any inflammatory language on my part. It's not becoming when I'm seeking to grasp the bible teaching fully myself, for the sake of my good and fruit...You're right, Christ is the essence of Christianity. But owing to the fact that he and his mediatorial, finished work is all of grace for this unilateral new covenant that we are the beneficiaries of, contra the world's religions which are 'law' and have men contributing his part,Christianity is not that way. So I think it's perfectly right to say it's essence is grace. Just connected/embodied in Christ,1Cor9v21...I didn't mean the bible when I said we need to go deeper than the 'word'. I meant the word 'antinomian'. Just that some people would wrongly call you antinomian, on account of being a calvinist. Historical definitions aside, the important thing would obviously be to look into the biblical theological issues involved. They would say you were 'against God's Holy law', you would say you were against a misuse of it...So, as to grace the strength of holiness, law as demand sin, these verses, for example, fall into arguments that involve the same,I believe- Rom6v14,Rom7v1-6. Also, because I think Paul means qualitative righteousness, as well as quantitative righteousness, can't come by the law, these verses imply the dichotomy between the two ways of living,too-Gal2v18-21,Gal3v3,25,4v1-10,24,30,5v1,5,9,14,16,18,Eph2v15,Col2v14,20-22,Heb7v12,16,18,19,8v6,10,13,10v1,2,17-22,13v9,2Cor3v6,9-11,17,18,Rom3v10,19,4v6-8,14,15,5v20,7v8-12,8v2-4,10v3-10,1Cor15v56,1Tim1v9-11. I also think this establishes the principle of the holiness of the righteousness in the law, because it states categorically that anything done in attempt to perform it is qualitatively filthy rags. Thus for the one who doesn't own Christ's perfect righteousness and a cleansed conscience, even though the law proper was the obsolete written code of the Mosaic, the principle of the 'stopping of the mouth'holds true in the works-righteousness conscience. Because it accuses only,when we're bent on procuring God's favour and blessing somehow by what we offer him to make him our debtor.

Phil said...

Just to add, of course I agree,Scripture alone, sufficiently and singularly, reveals for us what is the nature of the once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints faith.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

I think I would ask you to heed your same advice. I already know where you are coming from based upon your first comment. You really need to read my article on Law and Gospel before commenting further. Just because I am no friend of Antinomianism does not mean I embrace Legalism either.

Either you do not understand what Prince is actually teaching, or you similarly do not understand the true nature of the Law.

Let me ask you one question: Is greed wrong? Why or why not? Your answer would help us move forward.

Phil said...

Daniel, this'll be a bit tedious, because I'm doing this on a phone, and am only on the internet occasionally. I'll download your article,though I think I'll know what it'll say, and I think for better or worse I'll have been there...sure, I'm no friend of 'fill up your sin because you're under grace' lies, either. But that's not what Joseph is saying. To the contrary...as I said, I understand the law is Holy,just and good. As such it multiplies the offence because sin takes the occasion of the command to multiply itself. But where I believe the difference is, is that you think submission to Christ as Lord means that it is proper and fruitful to relate to that law (whatever one takes us their ethical 'canon of conduct')as demand on the conscience in sanctification. Despite it's amelioration by grace. Whereas I think we can only relate to the law that way in fleshly self-righteousness, which that law came to ' stop the mouth' concerning this root of all moral sin. Sure, greed is wrong. I'm sure Joseph wouldn't say any differently. But when I think I can gain God's favour on any level by performing a law of 'do not covet' which has authority over me, I think I must be operating,not out of love's response to his love to me, but self-righteousness. And that will only multiply my sin, and bring my conscience under a sense of guilt and condemnation before God. Which in turn kills faith, quenches the Spirit, ruins the fruit, a la Galatia. And too, I need to be conscious of eternal cleansing,rather than the 'as-you-go' performance variety,so that I can obey righteousness from a gracious heart-response...apologies if I do indeed need to take my own advice! As I say, I'll read your piece.

Phil said...

I know I said I'd read it, but it's huge...still,it's on my laptop...I should just say that I'm not saying that right and wrong don't exist. In fact, I would say 1Cor13 outlines the very heights of righteous heart-attitudes in the new covenant, that then proceed to their active ends, in accordance with applicable commands. But what I have been saying, is that we can't love with that love till we're free from the authority of the letter between us and God. We can't obey from the heart until we are fully dead to the law, it to us. And that's happened for the believer. His sins are removed. They can no longer separate between him and God. He's been washed, cleansed, sanctified, righteousness imputed to him. Such that God treats him that way. And this also takes care of his practical transformation into the same image.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

sure, take your time to read the article.

I do not think you truly understand the Reformed position. I am sure some may have phrased it that way, but where in any of our creeds and confessions is it written that it is "proper and fruitful to relate to that law (whatever one takes us their ethical 'canon of conduct')as demand on the conscience in sanctification"? Demand is not similar to regulation.

You mentioned that greed is wrong. Why is it wrong? According to whose standard, preference or command?

Phil said...

Hi Daniel. I'll hold the thought for now. I wrote a longer comment, but I'll just say this-I think perhaps 'whatsoever is not of faith'is a wider/deeper concept than 'transgression of the law'. That cuts to the chase. Hmm.

Joel Tay said...

Phil,

Just on a short note, you mention Spurgeon.

Spurgeon opposes Prince's antinomianism. Here are some quotes by Spurgeon on the law:

"If the professed convert distinctly and deliberately declares that he knows the Lord's will but does not mean to attend to it, you are not to pamper his presumption, but it is your duty to assure him that he is not saved. Do not suppose that the Gospel is magnified or God glorified by going to the worldlings and telling them that they may be saved at this moment by simply accepting Christ as their Savior, while they are wedded to their idols, and their hearts are still in love with sin. If I do so I tell them a lie, pervert the Gospel , insult Christ, and turn the grace of God into lasciviousness." -Charles Haddon Spurgeon

Spurgeon is saying that those who preach this easy believerism is denying the Lord. Jude 1:4

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the GRACE of our God INTO LASCIVIOUSNESS, and DENYING the only "Lord" God, and our "Lord" Jesus Christ.

Charles Spurgeon: “I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel who does not preach the Law.” Then he warns, “Lower the Law and you dim the light by which man perceives his guilt; this is a very serious loss to the sinner rather than a gain; for it lessens the likelihood of his conviction and conversion. I say you have deprived the gospel of its ablest auxiliary [its most powerful weapon] when you have set aside the Law. You have taken away from it the schoolmaster that is to bring men to Christ . . . They will never accept grace till they tremble before a just and holy Law. Therefore the Law serves a most necessary purpose, and it must not be removed from its place.”

I do not see how Spurgeon can be said to be in agreement with Prince.

PuritanReformed said...

Joel:

Prince "officially" teaches that the Law is needed to bring people to Christ in the sense that they are shown their sin, as he mentions in his waste-of-paper book Destined to Reign. Whether he actually practices it of course is another story altogether. What Prince denies is that the Law is applicable in any form to Christians after they are saved. It is as if after a person becomes a Christian, the person does not neeed to obey any law already.

But yes, Prince will not preach the Law at all contra to Spurgeon, and thus the quotes hit home. For Prince, the Law somehow mystically shows unbelievers their sin without the necessity of being read or heard.

Phil said...

Joel, I agree with the first London Baptist confession over the CT-influenced ones on law-conviction. Quotes I've seen from Spurgeon are perhaps not entirely consistent on this, but I don't believe the gospel needs law. Have you read Jon Zens on this?Thing is, everyone in Adam has the principle of law at work in their consciences already, as they are works of the law orientated. It doesn't need law-preaching. If anything-by itself-that might just even confirm them in a performance mentality. Second,it's general revelation. That can't add anything to one's salvation. It can't convict on the core of the matter, it can't provide the solution, it can't make the solution work. Jn16v8-11,Acts,tie the Spirit's conviction of sin to unbelief in the gospel...and if tried to point out that what's being said about 'death to the Law' is that the RELATIONSHIP is severed. It has no dynamic to procure what it demands,but rather,related to that way, inflames the very sin it forbids,because it is made weak/taken captive by the flesh. Hence why Paul,after defending it's inherent goodness,and the goodness of the role it was intended, calls it 'the law of sin and death'which we had to be delivered from by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Does the Law have on use for the Christian? Depends whether that use falls under the realm of authoritative relationship,or not. It still describes holiness. But it still inflames sin. Paul's address in Rom6v1 is not addressed to legalist, who thinks the power to perform the good that he would is found under the authority of the Law. He says no. It's found in our death to it,and our having been raised new creations in him. That some might abuse this to lasciviousness just means they haven't trustingly believed. Otherwise the gospel alone would procure the very opposite. That some seem to think that the power to do the good described in the law, as well as the willingness to fulfill it,is found in the law,I think is exactly what Paul is saying the gospel is not,Rom6,7,8. That multiplies sin,in fact, and mistakes the will for the deed. And I think it ends up predicating 'obedience' purely on whether I reckon I'm under law. As if that was the guarantee! Rom6v14. As we might take from Paul in Rom2,if those who don't live under the performance-standards of the law nevertheless do the things contained in the law(and that from a pure heart),shall not their (spiritual)obedience from their circumcised heart-circumcised by the Spirit of grace-condemn those who,while defending the propriety of being under the authority of law before God,nevertheless don't(can't!)fulfil the same?...as well,there's the question of our concept of the term 'law'. Obviously, CT'ers have in mind an over-arching 'eternal moral law', whereas others do not. It's covenantal,Heb7v12, and more, it's FORM and nature is predicated on that of the Priesthood of the covenant. Is it weak and beggarly elemental form(Old Covenant),or after the qualitative form of eternal divin life(New Covenant)? With the glory manifested and expressed in a new and living way, which actually works...while the Old did not and could not and was designed to show that it did not and could not?

Phil said...

Oh, the woes of predictive text...I made plenty of mistakes,above, and I hope I can be followed without paragraphs, but I'll just correct this one...I meant Paul was addressing an objection from the 'legalist' in Rom6v1,and turning the tables on his argument...I have to say, when I've seen the NCC people writing, they breathe fruit.

Phil said...

Joel,just to clarify, when I mentioned the quote from Spurgeon in Joseph's book,it was one of those quotes that ascribed the power for holiness to grace, over against law. I'm not saying Spurgeon always spoke like that.

Phil said...

Joel, to pick up on what Spurgeon said in one of the quotes you gave,that went something like 'don't think the gospel means you can go to the sinner and tell him God will forgive him his sins when his heart's wedded to his idols',that depends on what is meant. Most assuredly, God will not forgive someone without delivering them from sin's power,at the new-birth. But if we think we must morally prepare ourselves for grace- a works-repentance- we are mistaken. We can't, either,because our motives are self-righteous and anti-gospel. God gives a full and free pardon without preparation, and that delivers from the very principle of sin's controlling power. As Joseph has said, anything else is telling you to get warm before you can come to the fire. And that's nonsense and means you'll never come to the fire, and thus never warm up,either.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

stop trying to make Prince more orthodox than he sounds. Prince denies that the Law is of any use to a believer; that is a fact that no one can deny. To attempt to pit this issue to be one of CT versus NCT is sheer nonsense, since NCT similarly extol the Law as a rule for belivers, as Volker, Lehrer and Reisinger in their respective articles and books have shown.

Similarly, please stop confusing justification/salvation and regulation. Nobody here is promoting that works save us. To state that point as if that counts for something is to show you don't understand the real issue at stake here.

Similarly, you do not know what you are talking about making such false statements as "it's [CT's]FORM and nature is predicated on that of the Priesthood of the [Old] covenant". Even if you do not agree with CT, the least that is expected is for you to represent our position correctly, not hoist your Dispensational hermeneutic onto our position and misrepresent us! I will ask you to desist from repeating such falsehood here in the meta again.

Lastly, you still have not answered my most basic question. Why is greed wrong? Can someone who calls himself a spirit-filled Christian claims that greed is not wrong but a virtue? PLEASE ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

Phil said...

Daniel,quit making suppositions about bad motive etc. I've been discussing some issues of the topic. Not 'is this this camp or is it that camp'. First, if any of God's blessings come by works-including sanctification-then I'm putting it to you that implies God must affirm us as righteous on the basis of works. It implies justification by works. So, our severance from a law/letter-relationship is crucial. Rom7v1-6,2Cor3. Second,I am NCT of sorts,but not for it's own sake. It's also not monolithic. Most guys have made out that to be under the law of Christ is to be under a new written code. They haven't taken Rom6v14 seriously. As to sanctification,John Reisinger's stuff once brought to my attention Bunyan's 'The Law and the Christian'. You may be interested. Most guys would gag over what's said in there, and it's sad. Third-maybe this is a cultural thing-but again you've confused my meaning with that quote you give. I was not referring to CT per se, but the Mosaic Law, the Law of Commandments contained in ordinances,etc,whose FORM has changed. That's part of the fulfilment of 'I will write my laws in their hearts'...we could go into plenty on why greed is wrong,that would be a lot more useful than a 'because God says so',but I'm not going to. Just as I would say to you, that not to 'cast all you cares on him' is wrong, but for better reason to the new covenant heart than a mere 'because God says so'...My hermeneutic is new covenant,redemptive-historical one...anyways,I'm tired. You often sound full of self-importance and abrasiveness when you talk, as if you're just itching to make a pronouncement of 'heresy' etc, by virtue of comparison with your epistemology. Come on, man, we're young but let's not be stupid and proud.

Beng said...

Hi Phil

Just so happens I'm reading something lately which has much to say (very clearly) on this matter. You may want to take a look:

http://www.gracegems.org/Ryle/h02.htm

If I may, I'd like to quote an excerpt:

10. Sanctification is a thing which cannot justify a man, and yet it pleases God. The holiest actions of the holiest saint that ever lived are all more or less full of defects and imperfections. They are either wrong in their motive or defective in their performance and in themselves are nothing better than "splendid sins," deserving God’s wrath and condemnation. To suppose that such actions can stand the severity of God’s judgment, atone for sin and merit heaven is simply absurd. "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:20–28). The only righteousness in which we can appear before God is the righteousness of another—even the perfect righteousness of our Substitute and Representative, Jesus Christ the Lord. His work, and not our work, is our only title to heaven. This is a truth which we should be ready to die to maintain. For all this, however, the Bible distinctly teaches that the holy actions of a sanctified man, although imperfect, are pleasing in the sight of God. "With such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb. 13:16). "Obey your parents . . . for this is well pleasing unto the Lord" (Col. 3:20). "We . . . do those things that are pleasing in His sight" (1 John 3:22). Let this never be forgotten, for it is a very comfortable doctrine. Just as a parent is pleased with the efforts of his little child to please him, though it be only by picking a daisy or walking across a room, so is our Father in heaven pleased with the poor performances of His believing children. He looks at the motive, principle and intention of their actions and not merely at their quantity and quality. He regards them as members of His own dear Son, and for His sake, wherever there is a single eye, He is well pleased. Those churchmen who dispute this would do well to study the twelfth Article of the Church of England.

11. Sanctification is a thing which will be found absolutely necessary as a witness to our character in the great Day of Judgment. It will be utterly useless to plead that we believed in Christ unless our faith has had some sanctifying effect and been seen in our lives. Evidence, evidence, evidence will be the one thing wanted when the great white throne is set, when the books are opened, when the graves give up their tenants, when the dead are arraigned before the bar of God. Without some evidence that our faith in Christ was real and genuine, we shall only rise again to be condemned. I can find no evidence that will be admitted in that day, except sanctification. The question will not be how we talked and what we professed, but how we lived and what we did. Let no man deceive himself on this point. If anything is certain about the future, it is certain that there will be a judgment; and if anything is certain about judgment, it is certain that men’s "works" and "doings" will be considered and examined in it (John 5:29; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:13). He who supposes works are of no importance because they cannot justify us is a very ignorant Christian. Unless he opens his eyes, he will find to his cost that if he comes to the bar of God without some evidence of grace, he had better never have been born.

Phil said...

I'll just add on the greed thing,that no-one seriously thinks greed is ok,as I said. The fact is that a desire to have good success, enjoy material things etc, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not sinful. Anymore than a desire to eat and enjoy good food is wrong, or to have a fulfilling sex life, or to enjoy a sunset or music or...all acts of sin are a result of the warping of legitimate God-given faculty by a self-sufficient,self- righteous,self-glorifying spirit to misrepresentative thought,word,deed. A spirit that has been born-again in the Christian,so that it's possible to have those legitimate faculties renewed by God,by dependance of faith,in God-sufficiency, through his righteously glorifying his children to his glorification through Christ in us,the hope of glory...clearly,the heart-motive is the issue,and that rests on the faith of the gospel, doesn't it? Which is why we can't reckon sin on the basis of amoral externals. As Paul said 'I'm persuaded that nothing is sinful in itself'.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

Fact #1: You are defending Prince

Fact #2: I have heard and read for myself Prince's stuff, and have found the teahing in error at multiple points

Fact #3: You constantly mention justification and salvation when I am talking about regulation. In other words, any question about regulation is answered by a point about salvation

Fact #4: From 3 therefore, you are constantly refusing to address the issue

Fact #5: From 1, 2 and 4, you claim that Prince is fine but refuse to back that up with evidence of any kind. When pressed to, you throw out red herrings.

If you cannot muster the type of intellectual defense that is required, I do not think that you are qualified to talk about "full of self-importance and abrasiveness". All I ask is for you to prove your case; this is not your soapbox. Since you defend a heretic, it is imperative that you prove otherwise; integrity demands it. Unless you want to someone without integrity..., of which I have seen many of such.

PuritanReformed said...

Phil:

at last an answer! Let us look at it.

>I'll just add on the greed thing,that no-one seriously thinks greed is ok,as I said.

Really? No one thinks greed is ok? Are you living in heaven?

>The fact is that a desire to have good success, enjoy material things etc, IN AND OF ITSELF, is not sinful.

What do you mean by "good success"? Maybe somebody defines "good success" as earning the next billion dollar. Similarly, what do you mean by "enjoy material things"? I have heard of people whose idea of "enjoying material things" is eating at a restaurant 7 days a week, 4 meals per day. Is that "enjoying material things"?

>all acts of sin are a result of the warping of legitimate God-given faculty by a self-sufficient,self- righteous,self-glorifying spirit to misrepresentative thought,word,deed

What is considered "warping"? What is "misrepresentative"? Who defines the standard upon which we can define what is warped and what is not? After all, something is warped if it deviates from the original; no original, no warping.

>the heart-motive is the issue, ...

So you can discern hearts? What happens if a person claim to be pure in heart-motive, born-again and yet have decided that pre-marital sex is ok? Even using our example of greed, what happens if a person claim to be pure in heart-motive, born-again and yet that it is alright to be greedy - like maybe "holy greediness"?

>and that rests on the faith of the gospel

Similar to the previous issus of the heart, if a person claims to have faith in the Gospel, therefore they can be greedy as long as they have faith in the Gospel?

>Which is why we can't reckon sin on the basis of amoral externals

Externals are amoral? Watching pornography is an external act, adultery is an external act, theft is an external act, so they are all amoral?

>As Paul said 'I'm persuaded that nothing is sinful in itself'.

Book, chapter and verse please.

eekpil said...

I do not claim to represent Pastor Joseph Prince or New Creation Church (NCC), but based on what I know and understand of the man and the church he pastors, I would like to contribute my 2-cent worth to clarify the misunderstanding and allegation that NCC is teaching lawlessness/ anitnomanism:

1. NCC is AGAINST SIN, and is therefore against the breaking of God's law.

2. NCC is FOR GOD'S LAW - for the purpose the law was given, i.e. to show forth the sinfulness of man and to convince man of his need for Jesus as his Saviour.

3. NCC is against the teaching that man must, and therefore should try to, keep God's law to become righteous and to be blessed by God. NCC teaches that man can never, and therefore need not even try to, keep God's law (in full, which is the only way to keep God's law), to become righteous and be blessed by God.

4. NCC believes and teaches that it is ONLY by receiving God's grace in the Person of Jesus Christ, that man can overcome sin and become righteous.

5. NCC believes that a person under law and in bondage, will TRY TO and will FAIL TO keep God's law, whereas a person under God's grace and in true liberty, will WANT TO and will GET TO love God and to love his neighbours.

PuritanReformed said...

eekpil:

My response:

1) NCC is not against sin, but against believers being in "sin"

2) NCC is for God's Law only for unbelievers, not for belivers.

3) Agreed

4) Agreed.

5) Agreed.

All of these, however, does not help Prince one bit. Check out my other post at http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2009/01/reformation-study-bible-antinomianism.html where I discuss this aspect a bit more in detail.

eekpil said...

Hi Daniel:

You wrote:
1) NCC is not against sin, but against believers being in "sin"

My comment:
I don't quite get you.

I attend NCC, and I've heard messages after messages from the pulpit that inform (or if you like, warn) the hearers (including both believers and unbelievers alike) of the destructive nature of sin and the undesirable consequences of practicing sin and living in sin.

It is precisely because the church is against sin that Jesus, the Redeemer and His redeeming work on the Cross are being taught week after week in the church.

It is precisely because the church is against sin that the gift of the forgiveness of sin and righteousness in Christ are being emphasised in the sermons again and again.

I accepted Jesus and rejected sin, because I believe that is God's best plan for me.

Sitting under the ministry of NCC makes me love God and His Holiness more and more, and causes me to hate sin (and living in sin) more and more.

So, I don't understand what you mean when you say that NCC is not against sin.

Pastor Prince declared publicly on numerous occasions that he is vehemently against sin and for holiness.

The church evangelises passionately to unbelievers because the church is against sin.

The people in the church boldy lift up Jesus and His Cross because we are staunchly against sin.

Whether one claims to be a believer or not, sin sabotages one's relationships and destroys one's life.

Only by receiving God's grace through Jesus and His work, can one truly address and resolve the sin problem.

My understanding is that NCC is against Adam's sin that separates unbelievers from God (that's why the church preaches Jesus's redemption), and NCC is against anyone being in "sin" or living in sin (that's why the church teaches living Christ-centered life by the Spirit and the Word.

So, please pardon me, but I really don't understand what you mean when you wrote that 'NCC is not against sin, but against believers being in "sin"'

You wrote:
2) NCC is for God's Law only for unbelievers, not for belivers.

My understanding is that NCC is for the Law of God, for the purpose it was meant to serve - i.e. that of revealing to all (unbelievers and believers alike) the futility of trying to attain holiness, righteousness, peace and joy by his own humanly efforts, and his need for a gracious savior.

As a believer who attends NCC, I am continually reminded by the church of my utter inability to keep the Law by my own efforts, and my absolute need to rely on the life of Jesus living in me by the Holy Spirit.

So, from that perspective, I see NCC as being for the Law, for the purpose God intends for it to serve (with regard to both the unbeliever or the believer)

PuritanReformed said...

eekpil:

1) Just because you preach against the destructive effects of "sin" does not mean anything, if indeed he has done so. Prince's pomomotion of the sin of materialism in his health-and-wealth gospel is proof enough that he is not against sin, but against believers living in "sin".

And no, Prince does not teach Christ's redeeming work, but of the "benefits of the cross" so that we might be healthy and wealthy. Far from being against sin, Prince preaches that it is a "holy thing" to sin in the manner of materialism.

>I accepted Jesus and rejected sin, because I believe that is God's best plan for me.

Thatnks for proving to me that Prince is not against sin, but against believers living in "sin". The pragmatic materialism (what's in it for me) is evident here.

>Pastor Prince declared publicly on numerous occasions that he is vehemently against sin and for holiness

Whose definition of holiness? Prince's version whereby it is "holy" to lust after blessings?

2) Prince in his book Destined to Reign expressively said that believers do not need the Law. There is no way you can spin that to say that Prince thinks that the Law is useful for believers.

quest4truth said...

Just a random thought:

What about the man who accepted Christ on the cross? He did not have time to display his righteous deeds or evidence of his conversion. He was only saved for a few hours before dying. Are we who are allowed to live longer held to another standard or do we get the same salvation?

Note: I just started watching JP and he seems pretty good on the surface. Now that I have read all of this I am concerned. Thanks for blog on this subject.

PuritanReformed said...

quest4truth:

The thief at the cross did express evidence of his conversion in true heartfelt repentance. Contrast Mt. 27:44 and Mk. 15:32 with Lk. 23:40-43. Note that both thieves initially reviled him, but later one thief repented and believed in Christ.

PuritanReformed said...

quest4truth:

the issue here is not the number of works or the duration of a holy life, for we are not saved by works but by faith. Rather, it is the essence of that faith that saves. Is it geniune one which manifests itself in a heart of obedience, or is it a false one which utilizes "grace" as an excuse for not living in obedience since "we are not saved by works anyway"?

LLC said...

Well then, I do read your article about law and grace. It seems like your article is in agreement with JP(against legalism). I am just a young sheep, so I am here to say sorry first if I type anything wrong,ok. So, you against legalism but I still don't know why you opposing Prince. I know JP does mention about material blessings but he also teaches to have a sense of the giver(God) because God always wants to bless his children. Am I wrong?He also said that every good thing(healing, prosperity and etc)is found in Jesus. Are you implying that this preacing will make people to carve against material things and then turn away from God? This things I learn from his free sermons your blessins is found in the person of jesus christ. The law cannot produce holiness but why are you still holding onto the law. I don't get it. Based on 2corithians chpt.3 verse 18, isn't this what Prince is preaching? This is not our work but it is the holy spirit which work in us to become more and more like christ. Isn't this the solution to overcome sin? Daniel, I know you are labelling JP as herectic and you are being very offensive with those who don't find anything wrong with prince. You used the word cheap grace and even called us who support JP as JP WORSHIPPERS. To me, this is crossing the border line. I am very offended by these words. I am not worshipping JP. I only acknowledge JP as a vessels that used by God. I also don't like you using the word cheap grace. Grace and truth came from Jesus christ. Jesus bought it at a very HIGH price at the cross and you here insulting this grace as CHEAP.It is free to us but the price is expensive. I hoped that even though you are being offensive in debating and labelling JP as herectic. I don't wish you to use this offensive word anymore.Again, I am sorry if I do get some point wrong.I was once thrown into babylon(confusion) because of your blog. Still, praise God I had gotten out of babylon. This arguement is good because it prepares us when we deal with person who said that we are going by one man interpretation. I pray that I can understand more of the reason on why you oppose Prince that much. May one day this issue be conclude once and for all in Jesus name. Finally , shalom to you Daniel. Even though being very offensive, I still love you for your passion of chasing after spirtual truth of our mighty saviour. Amen.

PuritanReformed said...

LLC:

>I know JP does mention about material blessings but he also teaches to have a sense of the giver(God) because God always wants to bless his children.

God desires to bless His children, correct. But why should we always think about blessing in a material sense? Why must we think that blessings will by default exclude suffering and want?

>He also said that every good thing(healing, prosperity and etc)is found in Jesus.

Nope. Technically, every good thing is found in God the Father, not Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Savior who came to die for our sins to save us from damnation. Futhermore, God is sovereign in His dispensing of gifts. He does not always give the things we desire but the gifts we need, which may not be what we want. Suffering is one of the gifts from God by the way (Rom. 5:3, 8:17, Phil. 1:29). Phil. 1:29 is indeed very pertinent in this regard

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil. 1:29)

>Are you implying that this preacing [sic] will make people to carve [sic] against material things and then turn away from God?

People will crave material things; will you and other Prince followers be able to say this statement with Job:

“Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1:21b)
?

And how about this:

Though he slay me, I will hope in him (Job 13:15a)

Will you be able to say this and worship God even if everything is turning against you, and life situations are bad? Will you be able to bless God even if you are penniless, jobless and abandoned by your loved ones?


>The law cannot produce holiness but why are you still holding onto the law. I don't get it. Based on 2corithians chpt.3 verse 18, isn't this what Prince is preaching?

So what defines holiness? Can somebody claim to be "holy" yet commit adultery? If you say no, isn't that law?


>This is not our work but it is the holy spirit which work in us to become more and more like christ. Isn't this the solution to overcome sin?

Yes, but how do you know what "Christlikeness" is, unless by God's Law?


> I know you are labelling JP as herectic and you are being very offensive with those who don't find anything wrong with p

Please inform me what you would do if I start insulting your parents. Would you smile at me and not take offense? If you insult God, will I not take offence?


>I also don't like you using the word cheap grace.

If grace is as what you say it is, then why is Prince allowing for example Jamie Yeo and Glenn Ong to get away scott-free with their divorce without church discipline? Why does he allow the grace of God to be so trivialized? Why does Prince not preach against the sin of coveteousness, which similarly trivializes the grace of God?


>I don't wish you to use this offensive word anymore.

Well, what would you do if a murderer come up to you and tell you not to call him a murderer because the word "murderer" is an offensive word?

LLC said...

Ok man, now I understand a bit why you oppose Prince. You say suffering is from God! Then, are you saying my skin condition is from God then? Are you saying God will cause poverty over a person to teach him a lessons?
So, your image of God is a judgemental God? Concerning about are we still going to bless God even we face bad situation. The answer is yes. We know God is a loving God and felt the fruit of the spirit that is joy, peace and love. We know the situation now is permanent because in the end we will breakthrough the situation with God on our side.
I don't know about the case with those two couples seems I am not a singaporeon nor I attend NCC before but I listen to his sermons. About the offensive word, I just want you to be nice when debating because we are brothers. Throughout your debating, you are being very offensive to brothers and only be nice to brothers which support you or agree with you. Should I call that pilih kasih? Concerning things that I have not yet answer, I may be making a very wol statement but I avoid making it since I am still a young sheep. I do wish one day God set up a meeting between you and Prince and both of you settle things together. I know that even a pro may come and debate with you but you will still refuse to lower your flag. You are so far the reasonable persecutor of JP than those in youtube who warn you and give you condemning verse about false prohets and your salvation at stake. Still, I decided to grow my roots on this side. Then, I will really really know what is the problem with you opposing JP. Finally, shalom to you again Daniel. May God bless you even we have different opinions.

PuritanReformed said...

LLC:

>You say suffering is from God! Then, are you saying my skin condition is from God then?

In the ultimate sense, yes. Nothing can happen without God's permission, as it is written

The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. (Prov. 16:4)

Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil? (Job 2:10b)

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Rom. 9:18)

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (Rom. 9:19-22)


>Are you saying God will cause poverty over a person to teach him a lessons?

Maybe, but what God intends is NOT for us to judge. What we need to know is that God is sovereign over all things. To those who repent of their sins and have faith in God, the Bible promises that ALL THINGS work together for our good, including earthly sufferings (Rom. 8:28; 1 Peter 3:14, 17; James 1:2-4). However, for those who do not repent, ALL THINGS work together for their ultimate damnation and ruin (Ps. 11:15; Is. 57:21; Jn. 3:18, 36)

>So, your image of God is a judgemental God?

No. Suffering is not necessarily linked to judgment. Christ Himself suffered while on this earth even before the Cross. Was that judgment?

The Bible's teaching is that suffering is a gift of God that God uses for the good of His people. For those who repent and have faith in Christ, ALL THINGS work together for good. For those who persist in rebellion and unbelief, ALL THINGS work together for evil. Thus says the Lord!

The issue here is whether we will acknowledge the justice of God and that God is always righteous even if we are inflicted by afflications of various kinds. Will we have the faith of Job who knows God and have faith in God that regardless of the circumstances, all things including our sufferings and afflictions WILL ultimately work together for our good, of which the ultimate good is godliness NOT health and wealth? Will we have faith in the Sovereign God who is controls suffering and uses it for our good?

PuritanReformed said...

LLC:

>I don't know about the case with those two couples seems I am not a singaporeon nor I attend NCC before but I listen to his sermons.

Well then. Will you concur with me that a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit (Mt. 7:17)? If Prince's teaching produces bad fruit, shouldn't his teachings be subject to intense scrutiny?

>About the offensive word, I just want you to be nice when debating because we are brothers

You are here presupposing that Prince is a brother in Christ. I deny that, and you are welcome to prove that to me.

>Throughout your debating, you are being very offensive to brothers and only be nice to brothers which support you or agree with you.

I am sorry that you feel this way, but as you should know that is wholly subjective.

>I do wish one day God set up a meeting between you and Prince and both of you settle things together

I look foward to it, if such were to occur. I eagerly look forward to calling him to repentance and faith.

>I know that even a pro may come and debate with you but you will still refuse to lower your flag.

The issue is not whether a 'pro' comes and debate me, or about "lowering my flag". The issue is what does the Scriptures say? If the teachings of Prince, or any other teacher, is not biblical, why should I concede?

LLC said...

I think I can get some bible lesson from you even though we are on different ground. I think you will agree if I say when christ has redeem us from the curse of the law, we are back to the choice when Adam and Eve were created. Two trees. Tree of knowledge and good and evil and tree of life.To me, you are being greedy by choosing both tree and not only one tree. Am I wrong? God commandment is not to eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil. You are choosing the tree of life (Jesus) and then the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Am I wrong? So, you reject legalism as well not living by the law. Then, how should a christian live then?

PuritanReformed said...

LLC:

>I think you will agree if I say when christ has redeem us from the curse of the law, we are back to the choice when Adam and Eve were created.

No, I disagree. Christ did not die to bring us back to the "neutral" Adamic state of being under probation. Christ died and purchaed for us righteousness which is imputed to our account. Nothing we have done or will do can contribute to being more or less righteous in God's eyes. I am surprised that you asked this question. Didn't Prince at least get this point correct?

I reject Legalism, that Law keeping in any sense contributes to our standing before God. However, the Law is of use to Christians to show us the way to live which is pleasing to God. The Law is therefore for growing in godliness.

Dienasty said...

Hi Dan, I found your blog post in a Google search for 'the problems with Joseph Prince'. I went to his church today. I'm very ... uncomfortable, to say the least. Disgusted, even, at certain points in his sermon, like you were with his book.

Thank you for writing this post.

I'm still working out my reaction. As a Christian, I have no choice but to afford him the grace that was afforded to me. I cannot judge him, for are we not both sinners in our own ways? I think the one feeling that stood out after his service in NCC was that of sadness: here is a man who is charismatic, talented, one who actually understands grace - something most churches forget to talk about; something so beautiful as to be breathtaking, that Lewis talked about it as the one thing that made Christianity unique - but he squanders that gift, twists the message in subtle, sad ways.

I pray for Prince now: we'll have an incredible preacher if and when the true gospel manages to get ahold of his heart.

PuritanReformed said...

Dienasty:

You're welcome and thanks for sharing. Welcome to Singapore btw and hope you enjoy yourself in NUS.

LLC said...

>However, the Law is of use to Christians to show us the way to live which is pleasing to God. The Law is therefore for growing in godliness.

So, you are rejecting the principal of right believing give birth to right living right. Tell me, the sting of death is sin and the strength of sin is the law. According to this verse, I wonder how christian can use the law for growing in godliness. We all still have sin due to our flesh. But, the law stir our flesh and make us sin. Keeping the law in the new convenant, wouldn't that lead to more sin in the church? In the book of corinthians, you should have found out that the law is called the ministry of death and condemnation. If christian still keep that two tablets of stone, wouldn't that be great trouble to them? The law kills and condemn.

PuritanReformed said...

LLC:

>So, you are rejecting the principal of right believing give birth to right living right.

Where did I say that? I didn't.

>Keeping the law in the new convenant, wouldn't that lead to more sin in the church?

So since the Law prohibits murder, and you said that we shouldn't keep the law because it leads to "more sin in the church", then shouldn't we condone murder? If not, aren't you keeping the law [against murder]?

>In the book of corinthians, you should have found out that the law is called the ministry of death and condemnation

And in James 2:8, we are called to fulfil the royal Law. Does that therefore make the Scriptures contradict each other? Or is it rather because you have interpreted 2 Cor. 3 wrongly out of context?

Jonah said...

He said that the institute of tithing began in the garden of eden and God meant it as a tithe from adam by not eating the fruit from the tree.That is total crap

PuritanReformed said...

Jonah:

yup, it is nonsense.

Ine said...

hey hey! yr comment's at myministrygen.blogspot.com =))

cos it says here Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters

haha! but yeap .

Luke said...

I'm gonna call you out on this one. You are lying. You haven't read the book. Because seriously, if you got up to page 134 without noticing any of the other times he says similar things (and if you hate THAT quote, there are hundreds more prior to it with the same message of no condemnation), and picked that one out (which I have found on many other sites), then you either just turned to that page to see if what others said was true, or you copied from another site.

The verse you quoted makes no mention of the Holy Spirit convicting of sin, but rather, Paul's letter moved them to change, and furthermore, the only time the Holy Spirit reproves anyone of sin is John 16:8-9 where He reproves the WORLD of sin because they BELIEVE NOT.

So if you don't believe Jesus died for your sins, I can see why you would still be guilty of them.

PuritanReformed said...

>You are lying. You haven't read the book

On the contrary, I have. Mine is full of red marks; you don't know what you are talking about.

>Because seriously, if you got up to page 134 without noticing any of the other times he says similar things (and if you hate THAT quote, there are hundreds more prior to it with the same message of no condemnation), and picked that one out (which I have found on many other sites), then you either just turned to that page to see if what others said was true, or you copied from another site.

I posted it on another site as well which is more widely read, so thi doesn't mean anything.

I can always analyze the entire book, but it is the last of my current priorities.


>The verse you quoted makes no mention of the Holy Spirit convicting of sin

So in your opinion, do Christians ever have conviction of sin? Who does the conviction?


>Paul's letter moved them to change

I see. So men can change apart from the work of the Holy Spirit?

>the only time the Holy Spirit reproves anyone of sin is John 16:8-9 where He reproves the WORLD of sin

And believers have always been believers? How do unbelievers become believers in the first place?

>So if you don't believe Jesus died for your sins, I can see why you would still be guilty of them

Oh, Jesus died for my sin, sure. But He died to save me from my sins unto holiness, not to leave me in sins of materialism and rebellion against God's Word and His Law.

Solus Christus said...

Wow, good luck PuritanReformed. It looks like you've really kicked a hornet's nest here. I'm really enjoying the dialogue. I can't believe people are arguing the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin. The purpose of the law is to reveal how sinful we are. The Holy Spirit uses this to awaken our conscience and drag up to the foot of the cross.

PuritanReformed said...

@Solus Christus,

well sis, unfortunately there are such people around.

AMCApril said...

I think Joseph Prince gonna be debated until the end of time about his teachings and stuff...

I don't know much about him

just pray for the guy and hope things improve

Andre said...

Puritan, how would you like to see Norman Shepherd and Joseph Prince duke it out?

PuritanReformed said...

@Andre:

that would be interesting, but I doubt it will be helpful.

Scot said...

Boys, boys, boys. You all sound very "smart," and very "religious." I'm glad you can defend yourselves with scripture. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the world does not need any more of. Attack Joseph Prince, or any person that you feel falls short of your interpretation of the Bible. But don't forget that the world will know you are the deciples of Jesus by your love for one another.

When we get to the point where we can finally STOP eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and bearing the fruit from it, and start focussing on the tree of life, we will begin to grow together.

Our focus needs to be on Jesus,not on ourselves, or our faults, or others, and their faults.

After all, what is to gain from pointing out the faults of a person that is trying to share the love of Jesus.

I won't be back on this blog to respond, because I simply stumbled upon it while looking up Joseph Prince Ministries. But, I hope you will see the truth of what I am saying to you. All of this is pointless, and nonsense to the world. This is why people do not go to church. Really, what would Jesus be interested in? Would he want us to argue with each other about our shortfalls, or would he want us to look for the best in each other and cover each other in our weaknesses? That is what a covanant means. You are my brothers, and I am encouraged by your desire to do what seems right. Use your vast knowledge of the Word of God to draw people together. Be blessed!

PuritanReformed said...

@Scot:

you may not be back, but regardless I will respond in case anyone else looks.

You presuppose that doctrine is not important at all. According to your presupposition, what one believes about God, grace etc (one's "interpretation")does not indicate one's salvation or the lack thereof. This is the difference between you and me. I believe that Joseph Prince is unsaved and a false teacher. You evidently believe otherwise, and take me to task accordingly.

My response is this: Upon what basis do you make that statement that doctrine is not important, seeing that Paul was willing to denounce those who add just a bit of works to the Gospel in the Epistle to the Galatians? Upon what basis can you even claim that you yourself are saved?

God is an objective judge. He does not care about whether you feel saved or not. As it is written, not everyone who calls Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven (Mt. 7: 21). It will do you well to reflect on the condition of your soul and not presume that you are saved just because you feel saved, or prayed a prayer or walk the aisle.

David said...

I have read both of Prince's books and they are quite troubling. Prince indicates that exhortation against sin is not appropriate for the church. We will need to cut out all of the epistles (so filled with awful exhortations) and we will have to burn the letters to the seven churches in Revelation (rebuke is ungodly). Don't worry, though, Prince reveals that godly sorrow is wrong and confession of sin is a sin. How you live doesn't matter under pseudo-grace! Stop all your worrying about that holiness and love stuff, Christianity is all about effortless success! What God really cares about is that you get what you want when you want it. The apostles had it all wrong and so did Jesus. But put all of that out of mind and just trust your new shepherd who specializes in making you feel good -- Joseph Prince.

PuritanReformed said...

@David:

not surprising