On Michael Brown's interview with Joseph Prince

In the mainstream Singapore evangelical and charismatic scene, charismatic author Michael Brown's (of the Brownsville Revival fame) interview with Joseph Prince caused quite a bit of a stir. Prince of course is in my back yard so to speak in Singapore, and he has deceived thousands of Christians, so of course I cannot keep silent. At the same time, I have said many many things already about Prince, exposing his main error. I would prefer not to comment more on Prince if not for the fact that believers will be confused after looking at the interview, as Prince seems to have exonerated himself over his critics. Was Prince merely misunderstood, they may wonder. Maybe Prince is not an Antinomian as charged, and those like me are wrong in criticizing him.

We criticize Prince not based upon personal animosity, but out of love for God and His truth. There is nothing happier for me than to see Prince repent of his heresies. So if I am indeed wrong about Prince, I will admit I was wrong and rejoice that he actually is leading people to God. This must be written only because there are many people who refuse to read any of my criticisms charitably and think I just love to find fault. This is properly basic and I shouldn't have to say this almost like a disclaimer, but it has to be said so that people hopefully do not go around judging me for judging others (which is ironic since if judging is wrong, why are they judging me in the first place?)

So back to the main issue! Let's just put it upfront: Even if Prince was exonerated on the charge of antinomianism, there are still many major errors he holds to that undermine the Gospel, chiefly among them the Word-faith prosperity name-it-claim-it shtick, which is another gospel altogether. Or we can go to how he blasphemes the Lord's body and blood by making the Holy Communion a healing medicine for the sick! So even if he is exonerated from the charge of antinomianism, he is still a heretic because of his Word-faith errors among others.

But let's look at the charge more closely. What exactly is "antinomianism"? "Antinomianism," or "against-law-ism," is the error that Christians are totally free from the law. It says nothing whatsoever about whether Christians should be or shouldn't be sinning. Rather, regardless of what one's view of "sin" is, one is or is not an "Antinomian" based on how one thinks about the law. Antinomianism is not just lawless sinning, which is practical antinomianism, but also in theory denying the law, as seen in the doctrinal antinomianism of someone like Tobias Crisp.

The fact of the matter is that apart from the law, sin cannot be known as sin (Romans 7:7-25). As the Westminster Shorter Catechism states it so beautifully:

Q14. What is sin?

A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

So now that we have a better understanding of what "antinomianism" is, let us look at the interview. We see that Prince says that sinning is wrong, which is good, but what exactly is sin in such a scenario? After all, I have not accused Prince ever of saying sinning is right. Prince is very clear that the one under grace should not be sinning, which is true but hardly answers our main concern. The main concern is what does Prince has to say about the law and its relationship to Christians? And here we see a fudging in the interview, with Prince stating:

The Law, as designed by God, exposes our sin and brings us to the end of ourselves, thereby bringing us to the foot of the cross where grace and mercy flow. Not only so, but "when God's people are under grace, not only do they fulfill the letter of the law, but they also exceed it or go the extra mile"

That is a good understanding of the first use of the law, its pedagogical use, to bring us to Christ, which Prince has always taught. But are Christians under the law as a guide, which is the third use of the law? Orthodox Christianity says yes, but does Prince believe in that? We see nothing in that interview that would indicate to us that he does.

In a linked blog article on Prince's website, Prince states the following:

If someone is leaving his wife for his secretary and tells you he is under “grace,” tell this person that he is not under grace but under deception! Go by the authority of God’s Word, not what this man says. Romans 6:14 states, “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” If this person were truly living under grace, he would not be dominated by such a sin. And no one living in sin can legitimately use grace as an excuse to sin, because it is antithetical to God’s holy Scriptures.

This is all well and good, but why? Why is that action of adultery sin, since we are not under the law? Prince does not answer this except to say it is against "God's holy Scriptures," but what does "God's holy Scriptures" teach? Can someone say he is "under grace" and engage in polygamy, because David, beloved of God, had many wives? Or can someone "under grace" marry a woman and her sister, a la Leah and Rachel?

The problem with Prince is that he is a doctrinal antinomian. As I have said, for Prince the problem is not sin as an objective problem, but condemnation due to sin as a psychological problem. Sin is wrong because it leads to condemnation under the law, not because it incurs the wrath of a holy God. To be righteous is to know one is now not under condemnation but under "grace," which through naming-and-claiming one's righteousness, sin will disappear. That of course is a form of perfectionism, which is another problem. But the key thing here to note is that, while Prince is against sin, he has no real basis for claiming something is sin or not sin, and appealing to "God's holy Scriptures" apart from an appeal to the law says nothing about whether polygamy for example can be done "under grace." Prince therefore is still a doctrinal antinomian, and nothing in that interview or his blog article has changed that fact.

So how, you may ask, does this doctrinal antinomianism play out in practice? How this plays out in practice is that, absent a real objective standard, the standard of what constitutes "not sinning" defaults to the culture, or rather, the church's sub-culture as it interacts with the general culture. Therefore, why Prince is against adultery is because adultery is considered sin in the Singapore Christian sub-culture. But Prince is not against greed (perhaps he might be against "excessive" greed) because greed is not considered sin in the broader culture. In other words, by defaulting to the lowest common denominator of sin as determined by culture, Prince will seem to be not "lawless" while he tolerates what the late Jerry Bridges called "respectable sins." Absent a true objective standard, Prince will never be able to hold up the strict holiness of God, which is why he will never call people to repent of their sins of greed, violating the Sabbath, neglecting the poor and other "respectable sins."

In conclusion, we must say that Joseph Prince has not said anything in this interview to disprove our charge that he is an antinomian. That the charismatic Mike Brown wants to play the PR game in the interview says more about him than about Prince, who has not changed. Prince remains an antinomian, a Word-faith proponent, a doctrinal perfectionist, and thus a deceptive heretic. Christians ought to avoid him and his false gospel and turn instead to the true Gospel of justification by faith alone, but NOT by a faith that is alone.

The essence of the hyper-grace error

After all that has been said, what is the essence of the hyper-grace error? If we wanted to pinpoint the major point of deviancy, what exactly is it? Hyper-Dispensationalism is obviously a problem, yet hyper-grace proponents do not emphasize Dispensationalism, although at least Prince explicitly uses the notion of dispensation as a prop for his theological propositions (Prince, Destined to Reign, 43, 92-3). It seems to me that the main error of the hyper-grace movement is its view of the problem of man, and the solution offered by Christ.

In Joseph Prince's book Destined to Reign, Prince dealt with what he thinks to be the major problem with mankind. According to Prince, the deepest root that causes all the destructive sin patterns is condemnation (Joseph Prince, 131). As Prince wrote,

That is why condemnation is the deepest root. It is a root that man cannot overcome through self-effort. Condemnation demands a payment for all your failures and sins, but without Jesus, there is no payment. For some time now, there has been talk about guilt and how it can cause various adverse symptoms to appear in the human body, but that is just skimming the surface of the matter. While experts may be able to identify guilt and condemnation as the sources, they have no solution to destroy them. ... (Prince, 133)

One can of course point out that Prince uses phychological analysis in part to determine the problem with Man, and that is correct. Prince sees the problem with mankind as one of condemnation. Satan and the Law seek to condemn people for their errors. The Gospel then, for Prince, is the removal of this condemnation; the "gift of no condemnation" (Prince, 164). Misusing Romans 8:1 as his central proof-text, Prince states:

My friend, the main reason our Savior's blood was shed was for the forgiveness of our sins. This means that the blood of Jesus also offers us protection from any form of condemnation. When you have a revelation that Jesus' blood has made you righteous and all your sins are forgiven, you are protected from condemnation from the accuser. It's imperative that you understand this because it will give you the confidence to come before the throne of God boldly and see Him as a loving Father. It will cause you to reign over that sin, addition or depression that is holding you in bondage today. (Prince, 159)

According to Prince therefore, the main problem with mankind is condemnation, and Christ came to remove the condemnation. Sin of course is not unimportant, but sin seems to be treated as external acts that stem from condemnation.

It is here that we see the main problem with the hyper-grace error. For if condemnation leads to sin, then the solution is to remove condemnation by naming and claiming Christ's righteousness as ours (Prince, 17-18). In orthodox Christianity, the problem with mankind is sin, in that Man has original sin, and commits actual sin daily. Man commits sin because he is sinful and thus violate God's Law regularly. The Gospel is the message that Christ has atoned for our sins so that we will be saved when we put our trust in him and rely on his righteousness. The orthodox scheme is this:

Problem: Sin; Solution: Propitiation, expiation and double imputation.

Whereas for Prince, as we have seen, the problem with mankind is condemnation that leads to more and more sin. The solution is the gift of no condemnation. This can be shown as follows:

Problem: Condemnation; Solution: Gift of no condemnation

It is at this point that we can see how the hyper-grace heresy develops. In evangelical theology, condemnation is the judicial consequence (not root) of sin. Romans 8 comes after 7 chapters dealing with the sinfulness of man and the Gospel of free salvation in Christ, and therefore the removal of condemnation is the consequences of actual salvation. In the Scriptures, no condemnation is the judicial verdict stemming from the Gospel, but it is not the Gospel. Prince redefines the problem and the solution in more psychological instead of forensic terms, and thus arose the hyper-grace error.

Due to its misdiagnosis and misprescription, it can be safely said that hyper-grace is a false gospel. By making the consequences of sin and salvation their respective roots, Prince and other hyper-grace preachers have created a false gospel which they are peddling to the masses. While there are some surface similarities between hyper-grace and the true biblical doctrines of grace, at its root the two are radically opposed to each other. Therefore, even as we must be against (true) Legalism, we must also defend and refute the hyper-gracers who might seem to be teaching something similar to us in some aspects, but are actually promoting a false gospel.

Hyper Grace: Sin and conviction of sin, sanctification

Brown's next charge against the hyper-gracers is that they deny that believers should confess their sins to God, with a focus on their denigration of 1 John 1 as being a polemic against the Gnostics. In this, Brown is absolutely correct that the hyper-gracers have invented from thin air a false context for 1 John 1, a text which in fact is directed to Christians, contrary to what the hyper-gracers say. Brown's next charge is that the hyper-gracers deny that the Holy Spirit ever convicts people of sin, and that the repentance demanded of believers is merely a change of mind (based upon the distortion of the meaning of the Greek word metanoia and cognates). To the former, evidently the hyper-gracers deny John 16:8-10 among other texts. To the latter, Brown basically threw the books (lexicons etc) at the anti-intellectual hyper-gracers, who pretend to be scholarly and use Greek words, while distorting the actual meaning of these words.

The next area of Brown's critique concerns hyper-grace's essentially perfectionist understanding of sanctification. Hyper-gracers are perfectionists, denying the need for progressive sanctification. Living the Christian life to them is "effortless," the subject of Brown's critique in chapter 9. Here, Brown's critique of the necessity of progressive sanctification, and of actually striving towards holiness (Brown, 91-148) is appropriate.

Perhaps the most disturbing within the hyper-grace camp is the radical and outright heretical conclusions some of the leaders are taking the movement. In his chapter "The New Gnostics," Brown detailed some of the even more heretical stuff that some hyper-gracers are promoting in order to preserve their perfectionism. According to one blog post written to counter Brown, and now cited by him, the author Michael Reyes claimed that he was not the one sinning but just his "flesh" (Brown, 229). Hyper-grace teacher Ryan Rufus is criticized by Brown for saying that Christians no loner have a sinful nature (Brown, 230). Even more disturbing is the mysticism of hyper-grace heretic John Crowder, who brazenly comes up with a version of union with Christ that has Christ replacing the believer and thus sinning is impossible for the believer, an error worse than that of Andrea Osiander and more akin to pantheism.

The last major error criticized by Brown lies in the hyper-Dispensationalism of the hyper-gracers. In this area, there might be some overlap with the anti-Lordship free grace camp. Andre van der Merwe attacked the Old Testament as being a book of confusion that shouldn't be added to the New Testament (Brown, 168), an assertion that is plain ridiculous and shows he has no idea how the canon of Scripture was formed. Van der Merwe made that statement because, like Marcion, he does not like the Old Testament's 'god of wrath.' Other hyper-grace teachers are less overtly Marcionite. Prince for example distorts 2 Corinthians 3 to claim a contrast between the Old Testament as being a book that brings death and thus not applicable in the dispensation of grace (Brown, 201; Prince, 43, 92-3). Hyper-gracers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is in essence a covenant of law (works) since the people rejected God's grace and wanted law (Brown, 193-6, Prince, 222-4). Thus, Christians can disregard most of the Old Testament since we are under the new dispensation of grace. All of these follow the path of the heretic Marcion and are to be rejected.

Hyper Grace: Sin and Forgiveness

One of the foundations of the hyper-grace message is that God has already forgiven all our sins, meaning past sins, present sins, and future sins. ... (Michael Brown, Hyper-Grace, 39)

Simply stated, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that pronounces us already forgiven for our future sins (meaning, sins we have not yet committed). (Ibid., 43)

Dr. Brown's first critique against the hyper-gracers is their strident tone attacking those who reject their message as "legalistic" and "against grace" (Brown, 22-38). The accusations by the hyper-gracers would however be true if what they proclaim was actually true. In other words, Brown's complaint here would only be valid if the hyper-gracers are wrong. If however the hyper-gracers were correct in their understanding of the Gospel, then Brown's complaint would be invalid. Brown scored better in his second critique of speaking about the forgiveness of sins, but even then he fumbles.

The hyper-gracers believe that Jesus forgave our sins past, present and future. Therefore. there is no need to ask for forgiveness for sins committed in the future. Rather, the whole idea is to just declare one's righteousness and not think about sin (e.g. Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign, 17-18). Brown's critique is that Jesus has declared us righteous by faith, but that forgiveness is given only after sins have been committed, "applied as needed" (Brown, 43).

Both the hyper-gracers and Brown are in error on this point, although Brown is closer to the truth. The problem arises when proper theological categories and distinctions are not made. When the question is asked as to whether God forgives our sins "past, present and future," the whole manner of thinking is wrong from the beginning. The question tacitly assumes that the solution to sin is the forgiveness of God, which plays into the hyper-gracers distortion of the problem with Man, but it certainly is not how the Bible expresses itself on the way of salvation.

The orthodox manner of understanding the work of salvation is to distinguish between redemption accomplished by Christ, and redemption applied by the Holy Spirit. Christ fulfilled redemption for all time for all kinds of peoples on the Cross. He has paid the full price of atonement to propitiate the Father's wrath and expiate the penalties of our sins. God is now both just and justifier of believers in Christ (Rom. 3:26). The price has been paid for all sins that has ever been committed, past, present and future. The work of Christ is finished, a fact which Brown has gotten right.

The redemption accomplished by Christ is then applied to believers by the Holy Spirit, who calls, regenerates and applies the verdict of justification to believers, adopting them into the household of God, and then He sanctifies and finally glorifies them. This application of regeneration is applied in time to believers. Redemption accomplished is finished at the Cross, but redemption applied is ongoing throughout time and history.

When we think in this manner, then the question posed by the hyper-gracers can be seen as being imprecise and misleading. Does God forgive our sins "past, present, and future"? God has paid for our sins and thus the forgiveness of sins past, present and future, but the application of that forgiveness comes about by faith and repentance. As 1 John 1:9 states, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We are already forgiven, but yet we continually seek forgiveness for our sins. Thus, contra Brown, it is true that we are forgiven of our future sins, but contra the hyper-gracers, it is because we are objectively forgiven of our future sins that we seek forgiveness (subjectively) from God for any sins we commit.

This dynamic is clearly stated in the Bible. We are saved apart from works, so that we might obey God (Romans, Galatians). We are saved from salvation by the Law, in order to obey the Law (Gal. 5:13-14). We are saved FROM good works (contra Legalism) FOR good works (contra Antinomianism). This is the proper manner of understanding the Gospel and the Christian life, which we should take in contrast to both Brown but especially the hyper-gracers.

Michael Brown and Reviewing the Hyper-Grace movement

The charismatic apologist Dr. Micheal Brown has written a book in 2014 entitled Hyper Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message. In this book, Brown attempted to sound an alarm against a movement within charismatic circles that promotes a certain view of grace that he believes leads to licentiousness. For others looking in, parallels might be drawn between this and the older Lordship controversy between John MacArthur and the anti-Lordship movement by people like Zane Hodges (a mostly intra-Dispensational controversy), or the glowing embers of controversy around the radical grace movement between people like Kevin DeYoung and Mark Jones on the one hand, and mainly Tullian Tchividjian on the other (an intra-Reformed controversy), which died down somewhat after Tchividjian's disgrace and removal from ministry due to his sin of adultery. Having read up quite a bit on the Lordship controversy, and having some familiarity with the more recent controversy over Tullian's views, I certainly think there are points of similarity the hyper-grace controversy have with the other two controversies, but I do not think they are so similar such that one can take the "grace" position or its opposite across the board. It is fully possible that the biblical position might be to side with the Lordship position in the Lordship controversy, and yet to side with Tullian Tchividjian in the radical grace controversy. Each position in each controversy must be examined independently on its own merits, without conflating the controversies such that one side must be the default just because its analogue in another controversy is the biblical position.

It is on this note that I wish to review Dr. Michael Brown's book on the topic. I would love to also review a book written from who I think to be the main source of the Hyper-Grace movement, Joseph Prince, but that would have to be for another time.

Concerning the history of this movement, I have lost touch with the happenings within the charismatic movement so unfortunately I do not have a clear picture of the relationship between Joseph Prince and the various other preachers accused by Dr. Brown of being proponents of "Hyper-Grace." What I do know however is that most of the material by the other hyper-grace proponents cited by Dr. Brown are quite recent— all 2007 and after. As someone from Singapore, I do know Prince has been promoting the hyper-grace message as early or even earlier than 2000. Basically, there were murmurs about his teaching on grace already back then when New Creation was starting to become famous/infamous as it grew to become a mega-church. While I cannot say this with absolute certainty, I suspect that Prince was the original hyper-grace preacher, and he spread the movement through his various talks and conferences around the world, as well as his "outreach" through having branches of his own ministry abroad in place like America, where he has his own very religious TV channel appropriately named "Destined to Reign." In this light, it would be really interesting if someone would actually research and do a write up on the evolution of this movement, as well as the relationships Prince have with its other proponents like John Crowder, Rob Rufus and Clark Whitten.

The hyper-grace controversy began with certain preachers like Joseph Prince proclaiming what they believe to be the true Christian message of grace that had been obscured in the modern church. According to Prince, he received a new revelation directly from God to preach "grace," and his ministry has never been the same again [Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign: The secret to effortless success, wholeness and victorious living (Singapore: 22 Media, 2007), 272]. Dr. Brown's book is probably the first written blast against the movement that has metastasized within charismatic circles. Since Charismatism has never been known for great scholarship in general, I doubt there would be a flurry of books dealing with the controversy, as opposed to the number of books already written over a short time span between Tullian Tchividjian, Mark Jones and Kevin Deyoung. Rather, the hyper grace controversy would probably be fought over in informal settings like blogs, and we would have few books on the topic.

[to be continued]

Interview RE: Joseph Prince

Chris Rosebrough has recently done a radio interview concerning the errors of Singapore home-grown heretic Joseph Prince, which can be accessed here. Prince's antinomian denial of the third use of the Law can also be read in Lisa Cooper's critique of Prince's book Destined to Reign, here.

Rosebrough's critique is good. However, I think there is an even worse aspect to Prince that Rosebrough overlooked- Prince's anthropology and harmatology. The problem with Man according to Prince is not such much that Man is sinful (although Prince does not deny that), but that Man stands under condemnation. Condemnation itself is what's bad, and therefore Christ came to erase this condemnation. In the Bible however, condemnation is not bad in itself. Condemnation is in fact the good and just verdict of God on wicked sinners. It is bad for us, because that forensic verdict results in damnation in hell. But if God decided not to save anyone, so that all would be condemned, there would be nothing unjust and God would still remain good. The problem with Man is sin, the solution is forgiveness of sin. In Christ's imputation of his righteousness to believers, the verdict has been changed from condemnation to justification. Both however are just, the former of God's justice, the latter of Christ's merits.

Prince's errant doctrine of man and of sin lies at the root of his heresy. It is because he misdiagnosed the problem that his solution is not the Gospel, however similar it is to the real one. He identifies the problem as one of psychological negativity, and thus the solution is positive thinking. Sin, righteousness- these do exist but merely as the backdrop to the overarching narrative of salvation from the [negative] feelings of condemnation.

Abba is not Daddy

One of Joseph Prince's sayings that promote irreverence towards God is stating that we can call God "Daddy" since that is what the term "Abba" means. We therefore hear expressions such as "Daddy God" and such expressions are given the rubber stamp of scriptural approval. However, is such a meaning really the case?

Some time back in 1988, the biblical scholar James Barr published an article in the Journal of Theological Studies arguing against Joachim Jeremias' interpretation that seem to imply that "Abba" is the same as "Daddy." Barr disputes that claim, stating in the process that the biblical writers could have used the Greek diminuitive form for "father" παπας instead of πατηρ to indicate such a connotation, much as τεκνιον ("dear child") is a diminuitive form of τεκνον (child). Doing some dichronic and synchronic study of the words related to father and "abba" in the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and their uses in extra biblical literature, Barr showed that it is unlikely that "abba" has the same connotation as the word "daddy." As Barr concludes,

It is fair to say that 'abba in Jesus' time belonged to a familiar or colloquial register of language, as distinct from more formal and ceremonius usage, though it would be unwise, in view of the usage of the Targum, to press this too far. But in any case it was not a childish expression comparable with 'Daddy': it was more a solemn, responsible, adult address to a Father

— James Barr, 'Abbā isn't "daddy"', Journal of Theological Studies, ns 39 no 1 Apr 1988, pp 28-47

While certainly this does not give us a really good idea of what the term "abba" refers to, we can safely conclude that the term is NOT "Daddy" and therefore Prince is in error here.

In conclusion, God is not our pal, or the over-indulging parent of a spoilt brat. Although we can call God as Abba Father as a name of endearment, we should not ever think that God is just our pal down the street or someone whom we can just approach informally without reverence and fear.

Joseph Prince and Joel Osteen: Birds of a feather

It seems that the Word-Faith Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen has decided to invite Antinomian Prosperity preacher Joseph Prince to his *ahem* "church." Indeed birds of a feather flock together. You will pardon me for not wanting to waste my time listening to drivel although it is livecast in about 1/2 hour away from the time of posting.

Grace, the URCNA and Joseph Prince

What do these three have in common? Answer: Nothing. Yet if one were to read former reformed charismatic Jonathan Koh's blog post, one would have thought that they all promote Gospel grace.

The recent furore over charges of Antinomianism has caused Dr. Micheal S. Horton to respond over at the White Horse Inn blog. In this post, Horton defended the Reformed orthodox teaching of the Law-Gospel Distinction. Horton maintained that antinominanism is a perverse distortion of true biblical teaching and he denied that he or the White Horse Inn ever taught it. He maintained that the way to address Antinomianism is not more law but more Gospel. As Horton wrote,

What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel! In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little! They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification. ... The ultimate antidote to antinomianism is not more imperatives, but the realization that the gospel swallows the tyranny as well as the guilt of sin. It is enough to save Christians even in their failure and not only brings them peace with God in justification, but the only liberation from the cruel oppression of sin. To be united to Christ through faith is to receive everything that we need not only to challenge legalism but antinomianism as well.

All of these are truly biblical, in context of the overall Gospel message. This is important when we look at Jonathan Koh's horrendous distortion of Horton's post.

On his blog, Jonathan Koh wrote:

They say history repeats itself. And it’s true in this matter of grace, antinomianism and legalism. When people accuse New Creation Church and Joseph Prince and other grace-based preachers of “antinomianism”, guess what – it’s happened before. Down the centuries, people have come up on different sides in the Reformed tradition on these matters. And even as I speak, things are hotting up in the blogsphere [sic] and in the Reformed world. People (many Reformed Christians themselves) are challenging some Reformed Christians (like Michael Horton) on the way they preach the gospel and grace. Too much grace, they say. Gotta beware of antinomianism. Same charges that have been thrown at Pastor Joseph Prince and many others.

The problem here boils down to context, context and context. Koh is wrong in his assertion, which we shall see in a moment.

Micheal Horton is a pastor in the URCNA (United Reformed Churches of North America) down at Santee (Christ URC). One thing about the URC churches is that they have some sort of fixed liturgy, and they do not use the liturgy they use merely because they like it. Rather, they have a fixed liturgy because they think that their liturgy reflects their doctrines. Therefore, their liturgy by and large reflects their functional theology.

It is with this in mind that I would like to look at the liturgy of a URC church which I have visited. While Oceanside URC is not Christ URC, I do not think there is much of a difference between the two confessional churches.

Oceanside URC's liturgy for Oct 24, 2010 A.M. service

Call to Worship
Invocation - Ps. 124:8
God's Greeting - Rev. 1:4-5
Song of the Month (from proposed Psalter Hymnal)
Reading of the Law (responsive reading)
Summary of the Law
Confession of Sin (Individual and Corporate Confession)
Ps. 51:10-12 (a cappella)
Declaration of Forgiveness (by the minister)
- Short responsive lines -
Song (Ps. 63)
Morning Prayer
Offering
Scripture Reading
Sermon
Lord's Supper
Song (Ps. 96)
Song
Benediction

As we can see, the first use of the Law (for conviction of sin) features prominently in the liturgy. This is in fact the common tradition of all Reformed and [Confessional] Presbyterian churches that I have attended so far. The Law is read, there is a period of examination and individual repentance, followed by corporate repentance of sins for the whole congregation. Oceanside URC follows up with a declaration of forgiveness based upon the Gospel, while in the OPC there is the declaration of forgiveness followed by the reading of the Gospel.

The Law-Gospel distinction in the Reformed and Presbyterian circles therefore has both elements of the Law and the Gospel, not the Gospel alone. Horton being a URC minister has this idea of the Law Gospel Distinction in mind, whereby the first use of the Law is applied every Lord's Day followed by the salve of the Gospel.

Prince's idea of grace - Antinomianism

In his blog post, Koh attempt to link Horton and Prince together. Having read Prince's first book, Destined to Reign, I am astounded that such a comparison can even be attempted.

Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of the book with me; it is with my friend Joel Tay who is rather busy at the moment. So no page numbers will be given.

According to Prince, we should not think about sin. In fact, the Holy Spirit is stated not to convict us of sin but of righteousness. The way to be sanctified is to NOT think about sin but about righteousness. In point of fact, Prince even gave us a formula for not sinning. This is done by repeating the phrase "I am the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ" like a mantra over and over again.

One does not have to read far to see that what Prince is advocating is the Word of Faith teaching of Positive Confession, this time applied to salvation. Prince does not tell people to confess their sins. In fact, he counsels just the contrary and says that only Satan convicts people of sin and believers should not think of sin. Salvation therefore is all about not thinking of sin but speaking to oneself positive confessions of one's own righteousness.

We can see therefore the big gulf between Prince's teaching and what Horton advocates. The difference between true antinomianism (in Prince) and false charges of antinomianism is the presence of the proclamation of the Law in its first use. The URC, as with all Reformed and Presbyterian denominations, proclaim the Law. We believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts men of sin, and that the Law is necessary (in its first use) for believers. The Gospel is given only after the Law has done its work, never apart from it.

Also, we believe in the continuing validity of the Law in its third use (for telling us how to live according to God's will). While we glory in the Gospel and God's grace, we do not therefore nullify the Law in our lives. The Gospel in this sense of sanctification is the impetus and motivation for our loving a godly life, yet without being the judge of our salvation. After we have strived to live according to the Law (in its third use), we continue to return to the Gospel as our only hope and the only way we can be saved.

All this of course is alien to the teaching of Joseph Prince, who is a true Antinomian. Contrary to the assertions of Jonathan Koh therefore, there is nothing Prince has in common with Horton and Reformed orthodoxy. We believe in the ministry both of the Law and of the Gospel in the lives of Christians. The Confessional Reformed recognize our continual sinfulness and wickedness before God, continually confess our sins, and turn to the Gospel always for the joyous message of God's forgiveness offered to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Truly, how different is our sorrow and our joy from the false peace offered by Prince.

Practical effect of a false doctrine of healing

Over at Call It Grace, Soon Beng has posted an excellent missive on the practical effect of a false doctrine of healing in the life of someone he knows.

Someone I know recently died from lung cancer. She was 50 years old. Apparently, her brother, who is from NCC [New Creation Church], was fervently praying for her to be healed right up to the moment she drew her last gasp of air, refusing to let go of the hope that she would be miraculously healed after two years of fighting the disease. Her 15 year old daughter is now very angry with God for not answering their prayers. Her husband, who is a new Christian, is very confused. Her brother feels very guilty that he did not have "enough faith" to save her.

That's the problem with wrong theology. Theology is not just about dry doctrinal disputes - it makes a huge difference in how you live your life, how you die (me? I would like to have it said - God willing - that I died with a smile on my face), and how you relate to God.

Doctrine has implications, and false doctrines has consequences, some serious. We get angry with false doctrines and false teachers not because we love to argue and be right, but because false doctrines have consequences in real life. In this case, the false doctrine promoted by NCC could very well lead to people apostatizing from the faith. These people are taught that God will always heal, and when the inevitable comes when God does not heal as they have been taught he would always do so, their faith is shaken and may be shattered beyond repair. If they apostatized from the faith, they would be hardened against the Gospel message because they have "Been there, Done that". They would have "tried" the faith, but reality in their experience has shown "Christianity" to be false, or at least their version of Christianity which the false teacher has taught them, and who is there to tell them the difference?

The role of a watchman is a thankless task. The haters (AODMers) continue in their mocking, yet they show their hatred by preferring souls to be led astray instead of false teachers to be named and marked. They love the wolves and not the sheep. In this case, they would rather people lose their faith and be hardened against the Gospel rather than Joseph Prince to be called a false prophet and teacher. Of course, seeing their hatred for the flock, they would probably be wolves themselves who love nothing than for the flock to follow and adore them instead of Christ.

So what should we do with those who follow these false prophets? We should warn them. They may very well hate us (since men love darkness rather than light), but we may impress the truth upon them so that when such a crisis come, they would hopefully come to see the light as God may use the situation to bring them to Himself. When the "theology" taught by the false teachers do not work (which they will not), we hope that they would recall their anger at our warnings and in desperation seriously think through the issue according to Scripture. For who knows whether God will use such a situation to bring them to their senses?

Phil Johnson: A Primer on Antinomianism

Phil R. Johnson has recently written an excellent primer on Antinomianism at his blog here. Most Antinomians may not be practical antinomians, but they certainly are theoretical ones. Due to their rejection of the law, they tend towards practical licentiousness or at least the toleration of "respectable sins". As Phil remarks:

... in normal theological discourse the term antinomianism usually refers to theoretical antinomianism. Theoretical antinomians don't necessarily advocate extreme libertinism (or practical antinomianism). In fact, a great many theoretical antinomians are known for their advocacy of holiness. (And conversely, many who adhere to "Holiness doctrine" and various other perfectionist schemes are also theoretical antinomians.)

In totally non-technical terms, antinomianism is simply the view that Christians are not bound by any of the precepts of Moses' law—moral, civil, ceremonial, or otherwise.

...

[more]

It is not so much the licentiousness that makes antinomianism what it is, although we certainly do see these in action, but the rejection of the third use of the Law as a guiding principle. Without the law to tell us what is sin and what is pleasing to God, Christian living is rendered directionless and epistemologically indistinguishable from sin. In such a system, no antinomian can legitimately tell anyone that what they are doing is sin, for "we are under grace, not law". Instead, all such telling becomes mere expression of disapproval without any teeth to it except for the possible lose of a relationship.

Rutherford: Rebuttal as if in anticipation of the "faith" and "grace" heresies

While reading Rutherford's excellent but extremely taxing book, The Covenant of Life Opened, I came across a rebuttal which Rutherford apparently meant to use against the Antinomians of his time, which is still relevant, in fact more relevant, for us today:

21. It were good to pray much, and to be dead to prayer; One of the main causes why we cry and pray much and are not heard, Psalm 22:2; Psalm 69:-3, is, because that which is proper to God the hearer of prayer, to wit, confidence and hope, we give to prayer which is not God. We pray to our own prayers and to our own wrestling [in earnest prayer] often, rather than to God: and we believer [sic believe] praying does the business and works the charm, as if prayer were Omnipotency itself.

22. Nor are we dead to faith and hope, but we believe in faith an [sic] in believing, and we hope in our own hoping in God. But [sic] was crucified for you? How many fetch peace, pardon and righteousness, not from Christ, but from their act of believing? Hence a case, whether some may not fervently pray and believe strongly, and yet be disappointed in the particular they pray for and believe they shall have? Certain it may be, especially when we are dead to Omnipotency and alive to praying and believing, and lay more weight on faith in God than on God, and on praying to God then [sic] on God himself. What Antinomians say unjustly we give to works, to wit, or peace with God, they and many unduly give to faith, not to Christ.

— Samuel Rutherford, C. Matthew McMahon (Ed.), The Covenant of Life Opened (New Lenox, IL, USA: Puritan Publications, 2005, Original 1654), p. 397

Sounds like an exact description of the "faith" (Word-faith) and "grace" (Joseph Prince and NCC) movement today, doesn't it? Truly, there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9).

See also:

On the efficaciousness of Prayer— Does prayer operates Ex Opere Operato?

Joseph Prince in his own words

This does not need much commentary:

I give thank for God for my roots in the Word of Faith teachings. It is truly on the shoulders of great men of God like Brother Kenneth E. Hagin that we are able to see further into the Word of God today. Growing up, I learned a lot about faith from Brother Hagin who truly had a special revelation of faith from the Lord. I deeply honor and respect him for all that he has taught me.

[Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign: The Secret to effortless success, wholeness and victorious living (Singapore: Joseph Prince Media, 2007), 271]

For a good exposé of the Word-faith heresy, check out D.R. McConnell's book A Different Gospel: A bold and revealing look at the biblical and historical basis of the Word of Faith movement (Peabody, MA, USA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988, 1995). McConnell is a practicing charismatic pastor, so the typical nonsensical defense of "you are not a Charismatic, so you cannot criticize" is invalid here.

The Reformation Study Bible: Antinomianism

Yes, I know the ESV Study Bible is all the rage now. But anyway, here is the ESV Reformation Study Bible's note on Antinomianism (p. 1831).

---

Antinomianism means "opposed to law." Antinomian views are those denying that God's law in Scripture should directly control the Christian's life.

Dualistic antinomianism appeared early in the Gnostic heresies, like those opposed by Peter and Jude (2 Pet. 2; Jude 4-19). The Gnostics taught that salvation was for the soul only, making bodily behavior irrelevant both to God's interest and to the soul's health. The conclusion was that one may behave riotously and it will not matter

A "spiritual" antinomianism puts such trust in the Holy Spirit's inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. In the first 150 years of the Reformation era this kind of antinomianism was common. The Corinthian church may have been in the grip of this error, since Paul warns them that a truly spiritual person acknowledges the authority of God's Word (1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 7:40).

Another kind of antinomianism begins from the point that God does not see the sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them. From this they draw the false conclusion that their behavior makes no difference, provided they keep on believing. But 1 John. 1:8-2:1 and 3:4-10 point in a different direction. It is not possible to be in Christ and at the same time embrace sin as a way of life.

Some dispensationalists have held that since Christians live under a dispensation of grace, not law, keeping the moral law is at no stage necessary for them. Rom. 3:31 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 clearly show, however, that keeping the law is a continuing obligation for Christians.

It is sometimes said that the motive and intention of "love" is the only law God requires of Christians. The commands of the Decalogue and other ethical parts of Scripture, although they are ascribed to God directly, are regarded as no more than guidelines that love may at any time disregard. But Rom. 13:8-10 teaches that specific commands reveal what true love it. The law of God exposes the counterfeit love that will not accepts its responsibility towards God and neighbor.

The moral law revealed in the Decalogue and expounded in other parts of the Bible is an expression of God's righteousness, given to be a code of practice for God's people in every age. The law is not opposed to the love and goodness of God, but shows what it is in action. The Spirit gives Christians the power to observe the law, making us more and more like Christ, the archetypal observer of the law (Matt. 5:17)

---

As it can be seen, Antinomianism does not necessarily include the teaching that Christians can keep on sinning. In fact, the very term itself (anti-: against; nomon: law) any teaching that removes the law from the Christian life. Definition 2 (spiritual antinomianism) and 4 (hyper-Dispensational cheap grace antinomianism) are probably the ones to focus on. Joseph Prince is not a type 1 or 3 antinomian, but he is most certainly a type 2 and 4 antinomian. In his book Destined to Reign, Prince denies being an antinomian but he only considers the type 3 version, not the others of which he is blatantly guilty of.

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.

Books sold in New Creation bookstore

Yesterday Saturday, I was at Suntec Mall for lunch with my parents and their friends, after which I was to meet my friend at 3pm. We finished lunch earlier so I had some free time, during which I decided to visit New Creation's bookstore at The Rock. Here is what I have seen been sold in there (Sorry for the poor image quality; I was using my handphone camera)

Books by E.W. Kenyon:

Books by Kenneth Hagin:

Books by Kenneth Hagin Jr.:

Books by Kenneth and Gloria Copeland:

A book by Kathryn Kuhlman:

Books by Joyce Meyer:

Joel Osteen's latest book Becoming a Better You:

Don Miller's book Blue Like Jazz:

A book on the Roman Catholic practice of Breath Prayers:

With such books being sold by New Creation bookstore, I do not see how NCC can spin the fact that they are promoting the heresy of the Word-faith cult, even to the source writings of E.W. Kenyon and Kenneth Hagin, not to mention Joel Osteen's self help book. In my opinion, they can protest all they want that they are not a Word-faith church (if they do protest), but the selling of such books show that they ARE indeed Word-faith. It is also interesting to see Emergent writer Don Miller's book Blue like Jazz being sold there, plus one book (at least) promoting the unbiblical mystical practice of Breath Prayers.

Oh, and just btw, the CDs of Joseph Prince's teachings are really expensive — SGD30 for two DVDs or so! I wonder just how many hundred percentage points of profit does Prince make on the sale of just one DVD set.

Joesph Prince: Condemned by his own words

My brother sent me the link to one particular Joseph Prince sermon, which unfortunately has its embedding feature disabled. Fortunately, I have imported the video over to Multiply, which allows for embedding. So here's the video in all its 'glory'.

-

-

-

-

-

So after looking through, here's my analysis.

---

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. 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. (Gal. 1:8-9)

This has to be seen for the evidence it shows. Prince displayed his heresy here before the world, and it is deplorable. Since when did the word 'peace' in Jn. 14:26-27 meant 'health and propserity'? The New Testament was written in Greek not for no reason by the way. (Even in Hebrew shalom is concerned more with spiritual peace than materal propsperity!) And Prince has no problem with Yoga? With a Hindu religious exercise meant to connect the worshipper to be one with Brahman? You got to be kidding!

All Christians are advised to stay away from Joseph Prince, New Creation Church, and their doctrines. Prince is preaching a false gospel and a fase 'Christ'; a god who functions more like a heavenly Santa Claus rather than the true biblical God who demands our total surrender to Him. Prince, repent of your heresies while there is time, before you face the wrath of God against you for distorting His truth and sending souls to hell who are all the while thinking that they are going to heaven because of you!