NCCS’ Reply to Open Letters,

Dr Simon Chong, BG (Ret) Andrew Tan & Rev George Ong’s Responses to NCCS’ Reply

& Dr Roland Chia Concluded in his article, “Procrustean Bed” that Joseph Prince preaches “a different gospel & false gospel.” (Dated 3 Nov 2021)


NCCS’ Reply to Our Open Letters

Please click to view NCCS’ Reply to our Open Letters


Response to NCCS’ Reply – By Dr Simon Chong


(Rev George Ong’s Comments: Note that Dr Simon Chong has written and responded not just for himself but also on behalf of 19 of us who wrote Open Letters to NCCS. There will also be those who will write their individual responses to NCCS’ reply. Two of these individual responses are featured in this update: Brigadier General (Retired) Andrew Tan and Rev George Ong, while the rest will be featured in the next one or two updates.)


Dear Rev Ngoei (Gen Sect., NCCS) & Rt Revd Titus Chung (President, NCCS)


Greetings! Thank you for your long-awaited reply. And thank you for being willing to raise our gravest concerns regarding the heresies espoused by Joseph Prince to New Creation Church (NCC). And hopefully there will be follow-through steps to ensure the purity of doctrines held by the churches in association under NCCS as we interpret Association as being in standing and agreement with each other on the basic tenets and doctrines and interpretation of scriptures that are fundamental to Christian Living that leads to life eternal in Christ. Of such there is no other way for the Christian Community to view otherwise the position of NCCS regarding this. For it is either Association with or Dissociation from heresies.


We would like to clarify certain points which your good self have raised in regards to our approach to this matter:


1. As according to a principle in Scriptures (Matthew 18:15-17), Joseph Prince has been approached by pastors (1 and then 2 and then a group) to recant and repent but he has not. And now, following scripture, we are thus raising this to you as the authority of Protestant Churches in Singapore. Individual members in different capacities as church members, leaders, elders and clergies have raised to their respective leadership but were all suppressed. Hence, our approach of these letters to you which there’s no shame to be opened we believe because it isn’t about matters that nobody knows about and neither should it be hidden in shame. For it is just a big elephant in the room that’s been ignored for a long time. Hence in terms of Scriptures, we have acted accordingly and are now seeking your action and to state your position. Not as an arbiter but as an Authority of Bible accuracy since you are a collective representation of protestant churches in Singapore. At least for one thing we know, the traditional interpretation of the doctrines is under attack, so what is your stand?


2. Article 5(i): “Every Church and Christian organisation duly registered in Singapore which accepts and subscribes to the Basis of Association and Objects of the council set forth in Articles 3 & 4 hereof, may become a member upon the Council’s acceptance of its application for membership.”

Based on the NCCS’ constitution, we would like to highlight 2 points that would call into question the eligibility of NCC’s membership:


a) Article 3(i): on a common belief that God has revealed His eternal purpose for mankind in His Son, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the supreme standard of Christian faith and practice, and that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds express our historical common faith;

JP’s assertion that the new covenant begins from the cross thus obsoleting and made redundant the Old Testament and the Life & Words of Jesus prior to the cross already contravene this basis to associate. His repeated wrongful interpretation and application of the Scriptures together with his oft putting down of the Law and his frequent encouragement to his hearers to ignore the Law or any parts thereof of Scriptures that contradicts his personal doctrine of grace, further shows his disdain for many parts of the Scriptures which as in the Article above stated that members ought to uphold as “…THE SUPREME STANDARD of faith & practice…”


b) Article 3(iii): as an association of Churches and other Christian organisations, each believing that it is Christ’s will that His Body, the Church, should be visibly ONE, and each desiring to work towards this end;…

As a group of concerned individuals from various denominations and churches in Singapore representing a much larger group of the Church vocally, we are expressing that this unequal yoking be put asunder. As such, the issues concerning JP and NCC clearly contravenes this working towards a unity as expressed in your Basis of Association unless JP and NCC are to repent from their support of the heretical doctrines that have been raised and in question.


3. Our complaint is not about an individual, it’s about the collective whole of the group called NCC as a Member in NCCS’ Constitution whose adherence to doctrines that are heretical and expounded by their leader/leadership. Of which this group is a member of NCCS as in Article 5(i) under your jurisdiction and thus the association. Therefore, based on this association, is NCCS agreeable to what this member upholds?


4. “This means that NCCS, as an association of churches, does not have jurisdiction over its members. NCCS, however, may advise a member church to reflect on its church life and teachings should it be a subject of controversy within the Christian community in Singapore.”

As a group that is concerned, we would like to know if NCCS over the last 2 decades have done what you’ve interpreted Article 3(iv) to mean as stated in the paragraph above? Or does the Article give you the right of non-interference? We hope that you understand that our issues are not in regards to policies or programmes within the church but rather statements of Beliefs & Doctrines. Therefore, kindly please advise us if there is an intent to advise or correct the above said member who is a propagator of heresies?


We just caught sight of the organisation’s guiding verse from Romans 12:5 as we were reading your reply. It says “…one body in Christ”. As we mulled over it, it also means you can’t force unity in purity unless it is in Christ! In His Truth! On His Word! Otherwise, it is just a unity at Babel.


We would like to end with a passage from Jeremiah 12:10-11, we pray we as leaders would pay attention to and be cautioned:


Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard;
    they have trampled down my portion;
they have made my pleasant portion
    a desolate wilderness.
They have made it a desolation;
    desolate, it mourns to me.
The whole land is made desolate,
    but no man lays it to heart.


May the Lord Jesus be Honored and Magnified always,


Dr Simon Chong

Attending Faith Methodist Church, Singapore


On behalf of

BG (Ret) Andrew Tan, Tan Siew Poh, Andrew Tan, Benjamin Yeo, Eva Kane, Daniel Khoo, Daniel Tay, Beatrice Ch’ng, Matthiew Lau, Charles Pitan, Wilson Kwan, Ho Chee Sin, Elder David Ng Tah, Wee, Pastor Dr Albert Chia, Rev Arnold Rajan, Rev Lawrence Yam, Rev David Liew, Rev Tan Cheng Huat, Rev George Ong



Response to NCCS’ Reply – By Brigadier General (Retired) Andrew Tan


To: The National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS)
Attention: Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian

Greetings in the Name of Christ, our Saviour,


Many thanks for your reply to my concern.

I noticed from the said letter from NCCS that there were 27 others that had similarly written to NCCS which were all “focused primarily on one subject.”

The 2-page letter covered several points
but disappointingly nothing to address that “one subject.”

It seems from NCCS’ focus instead to explaining its Constitution is to suggest its limitations in addressing the “one subject.” I beg to differ!

The “one subject” concerns the Gospel, the Truth, Christ, the salvation of men and for that very reason, God sent His only begotten Son to this world to die for our sins.
Can defending this “one subject” be windswept and battered by NCCS or for that matter any earthly Constitution? God forbid!

Sadly, this is how I view NCCS by its response.
That NCCS does not see itself as Christian leaders under a duty to protect the flock, but merely as leaders of a man-made institution comprising practically any organization that calls itself ‘Christian’…

I would like to ask NCCS to do some deep spiritual soul searching and answer these two simple questions:
1. Who is your Master?
2. Whose work is NCCS doing?

I would like to end my reply with this statement as food for thought.

If the shepherds do not point out the wolves for the sheep to recognize
and instead introduce these wolves as fellow shepherds, aren’t the shepherds responsible when the sheep follow these wolves when they come offering sweeter food?

Are these shepherds serving their Master or the wolves?

Best Regards

Brigadier General (Retired) Andrew Tan
Attending Covenant Evangelical Free Church, Singapore



Response to NCCS’ Reply – By Rev George Ong


(This is Part 1. My Part 2 would probably be presented in the next or subsequent update.)


Dear Rev Ngoei (Gen Sect., NCCS) & Rt Revd Titus Chung (President, NCCS), & the Executive Committee Members of NCCS, thanks for your reply and here is my response to your reply:


NCCS wrote,


Dear Fellow Christians, In September and October 2021, the NCCS office received a number of letters regarding the preaching and teaching of Pastor Joseph Prince from New Creation Church. These open letters were widely circulated and also appeared on social media. We understand that the authors of the open letters are individuals who do not officially represent the leadership of their local church or denomination.


Is officially representing the leadership of local churches that important to establish just one issue – whether Joseph Prince is a heretic which is the bone of contention?


Is NCCS saying that even if we, as individuals, can prove that Joseph Prince is a heretic, you wouldn’t even want to be bothered with what we have brought up to you – just because we have written as individuals? If so, this is bureaucracy at an ugly level. This is using bureaucracy to avoid the responsibility of dealing with a pressing issue that has been afflicting the Singapore Church, especially for quite some time.


Are we, who have brought up about the outlandish teachings of Joseph Prince to NCCS, not really representing the concerns of the local churches in Singapore?


I have been a Pastor and Itinerant Preacher for about 30 years. And in my many years of itinerant ministry (where I moved around to preach in the many different churches), I’ve heard so many complaints from local pastors about Joseph Prince’s weird teachings that have influenced their members, and their grouses for having lost their sheep to Prince. Plenty of them!


The truth is Joseph Prince and his teachings that have attracted the sheep of the many churches to his, have usually been the talking point whenever I meet Singapore pastors and members.


The situation in Singapore has always been – that many pastors were deeply resentful for having lost their sheep to Joseph Prince over the past many years. Their usual cries and complaints were that they were pretty upset that their sheep had crossed over into Joseph Prince’s fold.


Almost every pastor I spoke to had lost their sheep to Joseph Prince. And their usual hope was that the Singapore Church must do something about his unbiblical teachings that were drawing away their sheep into his fold.


One Senior Pastor I spoke to was saddened that he had even lost an elder to Joseph Prince. He told me his elder was thought to be the most unlikely to cross over to Joseph Prince’s church as he was very tight and conservative in his doctrines. Yet, even this conservative elder was deceived by Joseph Prince.


There was another Senior Pastor who was deeply concerned about the influence Joseph Prince had over members of other churches. Out of his deep concern, he challenged me in a positive way to do a deep study of Joseph Prince’s teachings and then to expose them. (But this was about 7 years ago in 2014, and I couldn’t have done it, as I hadn’t received the call from God yet. The call to expose Joseph Prince’s heresies only came 3 years later in 2017.)


The sentiments of these 2 pastors represented that of every pastor I’ve met – their deep concern over the hold of Joseph Prince’s teachings had on their church members.


So, let’s be honest and admit that this is what is really happening on the ground even today.


As top leaders of the Singapore church in NCCS, have you heard of such complaints or grouses from pastors and members of the Singapore churches? If you say “no”, I’ll be thrown off my chair. I’m 100 percent sure that you have. But what have you done so far? Just listened? You mean that’s all you do as the top leadership of the Singapore Church?


Let’s just assume that Joseph Prince’s teachings are technically, not heretic, but as we all know, his teachings are so dangerously deviant and frighteningly numerous and affecting so many churches across the many different denominations over a long period of time; these reasons alone is enough for NCCS to act. For NCCS to ever say that to issue a warning to all the sheep in the Singapore churches about such destructive teachings of Prince and to confront Prince over his disturbing teachings is going overboard, is totally unacceptable. But that’s what NCCS is saying as they haven’t done anything concrete ‘as an organisation’ about the complaints and grouses of these poor Singapore Pastors who have lost their many sheep to Prince. I know of one Methodist Church in Singapore that has lost about 150 church members to New Creation Church over a period of several years.


And hence, our actions and our letters are actually reflecting the complaints and grouses of these Pastors in these local churches. The difference is that while many Pastors and members just stay at complaining in the background, we have gone a step further. We have stuck our necks out to bring this to the attention of the Christian public and that of NCCS.


But even without us raising this Joseph Prince issue to NCCS, you ought to be doing something about this state of affairs that are hurting the local churches in Singapore as you are totally aware of what is happening.


Because you in NCCS won’t initiate the process of confronting, disciplining and removing Joseph Prince from NCCS if he is unrepentant, we have no choice but to resort to open letters. Please dig deep into your conscience and ask, is this not the truth? Why would we resort to open letters if you in NCCS have been responsive and responsible to deal with the Joseph Prince issue. And how long have you dragged this out – 20 over years! And, yet, you are still avoiding your responsibility to this day!


Instead of thoroughly investigating whether what we have brought up is the truth, and complimenting us for taking the risk to be whistle blowers, you resort to officialdom to say we are out of order because we don’t represent the leadership of the churches? Even the people of the world would appreciate and value the role of genuine whistle blowers with no hidden agenda, but had acted only because of their social and religious conscience, except NCCS.


Is there anything wrong to be a whistle blower by writing open letters, especially when the highest level of leadership in the Singapore Church isn’t interested at all to face this crucial issue squarely? Do we enjoy being whistle blowers? Are we aware of the price we have to pay to play this unenviable role? Have we gained anything from this? Work and more work! Criticisms and more criticisms! I personally have made more than my fair share of ‘enemies’ in Joseph Prince’s camp. Now, with the added and enormous task of taking on NCCS, I am probably the most ‘hated’ or disdained guy in the camp of many sections of the Singapore Church.


Let me share 2 events to further prove my point that Joseph Prince’s heretical teachings are of concern to the Singapore Church, and that we, by raising this issue to NCCS, are only reflecting such a sentiment.


First, the Chinese Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Singapore must have felt the urgency that Joseph Prince’s heretical teachings needed to be addressed when they organised a seminar on hyper-grace on 2 May 2016 and invited Dr Roland Chia to be the speaker.


Please click to view the link:


The host of this website had provided summary statements of the distortions of Hyper Grace Teachers, reproduced from Dr Roland Chia’s notes:


1. They have dismissed the whole of the OT. Narratives in the OT are merely used as examples or illustrations.


2. They have dismissed the relevance of the Ten Commandments and God’s moral laws for Christians.


3. Their theology (i.e. doctrine of God) is erroneous because they have emphasised only certain aspects of God’s character and only some of His attributes (like love) while neglecting others.


4. Their Christology is defective. For them salvation is centred only on the death of Christ. In the NT, the whole incarnate life of the Son is salvific.


5. Their understanding of the ministry and teachings of Jesus is erroneous because they consider the teachings of Jesus before Calvary as irrelevant for Christians (this includes the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and the Lord’s Prayer).


6. Their pneumatology is erroneous because they teach that the Holy Spirit does not convict believers of sin. This is instead attributed to the work of the devil.


7. Their understanding of the writings of Paul is erroneous. Paul always balances the indicative and the imperative (you are such and such, therefore, you should do such and such). But the new antinomians only emphasise the indicative and entirely omit the imperatives.


8. Their soteriology is erroneous because they teach that it is impossible for Christians to lose their salvation.


9. Their eschatology is erroneous because they present an over-realised eschatology when they insist that Christians are already perfect.


10. Needless to say, their entire theology of the Christian life and discipleship is erroneous.


11. The Hyper Grace Teachers are also promoters of the health and wealth Gospel. They incorporate this quite easily in their theology of grace.


The host of this website continued with these words:


I definitely appreciate Dr Roland Chia’s ability and willingness to say what needs to be said. As far as he is concerned, the doctrine of Hyper Grace is heretical and as such, harmful to the Body of Christ.


The conclusion of Dr Roland Chia that the hyper-grace doctrine of Joseph Prince is heretical must have gone down deep with the audience. I supposed among those who attended the seminar must have been many Pastors from the Chinese Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Singapore.


I have personally heard from at least one Pastor from the same conference that many pastors in the Chinese Annual Conference of the Methodist Church in Singapore were very against Joseph Prince’s teachings.


But what is disappointing is that only recently, at least one Pastor (I believe there are more) in the same Chinese Annual Conference is defending Joseph Prince as not a heretic, and fiercely taking issue with us for confronting Joseph Prince. What happened? I guessed it may have been due to some pressure that was applied from somewhere or the self-preservation of his own position that compelled him (and others) to change his mind.


The Singapore Anglican Church too must have felt the same threat of Joseph Prince’s teachings to their denomination when they invited the same Dr Roland Chia to speak on “The New Antinomianism: A Critique of the New Theology of Grace” in 2016 to their clergy meeting of the Anglican Diocese of Singapore in 2016.


Please click to view the article written by Dr Roland Chia on “The New Antinomianism: A Critique of the New Theology of Grace,” and contents of this article were delivered at the Singapore Anglican clergy meeting in 2016:


At the conclusion of the article, Dr Roland Chia, a qualified theologian who knows his stuff, states that the new antinomians, of which Joseph Prince is identified as one, are preaching heresies and a different gospel.


In the article, Dr Roland Chia wrote the following two paragraphs in italics:


“… the issue that needs to be seriously addressed is whether their theology can be said to have subverted, destabilised or even destroyed the core of the Christian faith. Put in another way, does this new doctrine of grace undermine the Gospel of Jesus Christ? It is my view that it does, and therefore should be regarded not simply as a minor aberration but as heresy.”


“What needs to be pointed out here is that the new antinomians have not only gone a little overboard with their emphasis on grace. As we have seen in this brief survey, their teachings have radically distorted orthodox Christianity in so many important ways that what we have before us may be described as an altogether different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8) …”


Dr Roland Chia had in no uncertain terms bravely concluded in both meetings (Methodist & Anglican) that Joseph Prince is a heretic.


These 2 events (Methodist & Anglican) only go to show that what we have highlighted to NCCS, represent the real concerns of the local churches about Joseph Prince’s divisive teachings. The concern is felt not only at the local church level, but more crucially, at the denominational level when both the Methodist (Chinese Annual Conference) and the Anglican denomination felt it was urgent enough to invite Dr Roland Chia to address the teachings of Joseph Prince to their Pastors and members.


So, in summary, what we have highlighted in our open letters to NCCS do concretely reflect the deep concerns of the local churches in Singapore with regards to Joseph Prince’s heretical teachings. And the issue of whether we represent the leadership of local churches now becomes a side issue and even irrelevant.


The real issue that we are contending with NCCS is whether Joseph Prince is a heretic. If a dog can really prove that Prince is a heretic, then it becomes irrelevant whether the dog is a human being or not (just to satisfy the condition that only human beings are allowed for such a venture.) Similarly, if we can prove that Joseph Prince is a heretic, it becomes immaterial whether we represent the local Church leadership or not. 


NCCS wrote,


We believe that the writing of an open letter is not appropriate and does not reflect the way that Christians are expected to handle disagreements or accusations against another Christian (ref. Matt 18:15-16).


I have touched on the issue of open letters in the last section. Let me now focus on Matthew 18:15-16.


Is NCCS really unaware that many Pastors and leaders, not just in Singapore but also the world, have approached Joseph Prince over his heresies, but he doesn’t even bother to reply to them, much less meet them?


Just one example, David Kowalski, an Assemblies of God Minister and a reliable Bible researcher and writer from America (see at the end of my article for many of his teachings found in the links), who tried to contact Joseph Prince about his teachings but to no avail. He wrote,


The validity of preaching on hell (Prince opposes such preaching or teaching, won’t put hell in his statement of faith, and has ignored my repeated inquiries about his beliefs on the subject).


What David Kowalski wrote can be found in this link:


You see the point? I have only shown you just one example. But because I do lots of research on Prince’s heresies on the internet, I found many others who went through the same experience as David Kowalski did with Joseph Prince too.


Is NCCS really not aware of this or other equivalents of the same incident?


Does NCCS truly not know that a high level of Singapore’s Senior Pastors had met Joseph Prince, to confront him about his unbiblical teachings, but he wasn’t willing to be corrected and remained defiant and the meeting turned ugly?


Is NCCS sincerely in the dark that one of their former high-ranking executive committee members, whom the current General Secretary, Ngoei Foong Nghian had served with for a good number of years, had spoken to Joseph Prince for about 3 hours about his strange teachings, and yet, Joseph Prince wouldn’t budge one bit about his teachings? How did I know? Well, this former executive committee member related that to my wife and I when we met him face-to-face.


So does NCCS honestly think that when Joseph Prince didn’t even ‘give face’ to Pastors around the world, the entourage of Singapore Senior Pastors and a former high-ranking executive committee member of NCCS, to admit any wrongdoing in his teachings, he will lay a red carpet to welcome us to meet him and listen to us? Come on! Let’s not pretend!


The fact is you are probably aware of all these happenings, and yet, you seem to give the impression that you yourselves are unaware that many people have already approached and confronted him, and yet, Prince didn’t even respond and he won’t even change a bit of his mind about his teachings, and then you have the ‘boldness’ to invoke Matthew 18:15-16 on us.


The fact is that NCCS is aware that many have approached Joseph Prince but Prince couldn’t care two hoots about replying and even meeting them. So why the need for NCCS to quote Matthew 18:15-16 to us, when you are already aware of these facts? To give us the ‘privilege’ to be disappointed again?


You seem to imply that it is unchristian to handle conflicts apart from Matthew 18:15-16 (not that I’m disagreeing). But it is even more unchristian for NCCS to pretend not to know of the many unsuccessful attempts made to reach out to Joseph Prince by the many others. Despite knowing that many others have failed to reach out to Joseph Prince, why did you still choose to summon a Matthew 18:15-16 on us? Instead of doing a Matthew 18:15-16 on us, (especially after Joseph Prince had spurned the efforts of so many people to reach out to him) it is high time that you, as the top leadership in the Singapore Church, do a Titus 1:9 and 13 on Joseph Prince.


The fact that Joseph Prince isn’t even open to correction by the plenty of Pastors and members (this ought to be a strong signal to you that Joseph Prince is a heretic as all heretics act in that same way, not allowing anyone to correct them) simply means that you, being the top leadership of the Singapore Church, ought to have stepped in to deal with the issue, without even being prompted by us.


Instead, you act as if you aren’t aware of the situation, and worse, use Matthew 18:15-16 on us to paint the picture that we had acted in an unchristian manner, when the truth is, we have acted sacrificially by putting our heads on the chopping board in bringing up this issue to you.


Unimaginable! What has happened to Christian leadership nowadays? No initiative and courage to act even when it is clearly your responsibility to do so. If you, being the top Christian leaders in Singapore don’t model for us what Christian leadership is and how a leader ought to behave, who would?


NCCS wrote,


These open letters may be perceived as attempts to put pressure on NCCS to influence its position or decision on the matter raised by the authors. This was quite apparent when some of the open letters called for NCCS to act with courage, instead of seeking spiritual discernment.


Yes, some did say that NCCS should act with courage. What’s wrong with that when we have given proof after proof after proof that Joseph Prince is a heretic? In the face of undeniable proof that Joseph Prince is a heretic, you, indeed, need the courage to do the right and only thing. You need the courage to act on clear and hard facts that we have already laid out for you on the table in my website. I have also copied many of Joseph Prince’s heresies to NCCS over the last few weeks.


Did NCCS examine all or even a portion of the evidence we have provided you in the first place on my website and the various materials which were copied to you? If you really did, what is your assessment? No assessment? No opinion? No conclusion? Not able to weigh this evidence that I have placed before you? Can’t be as many of you in NCCS, are not only experienced pastors, but have theological degrees. You mean you can’t judge what is true and what is false with what I have presented on my website? You mean you haven’t gone through what I have so laboriously worked to produce the evidence for you? If not, why the complete silence regarding this matter in your reply to us when we have made this the cornerstone of our case that you must examine the evidence we have placed before you that Joseph Prince is indeed a heretic?


Instead of asking yourself, why are these people voicing out their concerns with such strong convictions that Joseph Prince is a heretic, and perhaps they have overwhelming evidence for what they are speaking about, and we had better be examining the evidence they had provided, you turn around and say we are pressurizing you.


From another perspective, we have ‘the right to put pressure on NCCS’ as NCCS had maintained an elegant and strange silence about the Joseph Prince issue for a long 20 over years without a single concrete decision on this crucial matter.


NCCS wrote,


In addition, Article 3(iv) of the Constitution states that NCCS was established “as an association of co-operating members, each of which determines its own policy and action.” This means that NCCS, as an association of churches, does not have jurisdiction over its members. NCCS, however, may advise a member church to reflect on its church life and teachings should it be a subject of controversy within the Christian community in Singapore.


While we do understand that NCCS does not have jurisdiction over the individual church’s policies and direction and perhaps, also her different denominational doctrinal emphases, she certainly must act and can act if her members start to preach heresies.


Is NCCS saying that if tomorrow, just one church under NCCS start to preach another Jesus that He is not God. Will NCCS say, “Oh, constitutionally, we can’t do anything about what the church is preaching even though she is mouthing out heresies.”


If that’s how NCCS responds, that they can’t do anything even if one of her members start to preach heresies, she would be a laughing stock to the world – that a Christian Organisation is condoning the preaching of heresies right under her nose, and she can’t do a thing about it!


What about Joseph Prince then? Well, what about him? Haven’t we proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a heretic in so many different ways – that he is preaching a different Jesus and a different and false gospel (2 Cor 11:4 NLT). This isn’t just said by me but also by Dr Roland Chia (a Methodist) and Bishop Kuan Kim Seng (an Anglican) (and many others).


We are not talking about church’s policies and practices; we are talking about Joseph Prince, who not only teaches against the scriptures but also against the Historic Faith, the Reformation, the Puritan and the Contemporary Church Fathers. Every proof of each assertion is already given on my website.


Every Church Father, namely, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, A W Tozer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, David Pawson, John Macarthur, John Piper, and many others have all taught against Joseph Prince’s heresies. If just a few of our Church Fathers had contradicted Joseph Prince’s heresies, that would be enough to cause a great unease. But the reality is the theology of not just a few but many of our Church Fathers are opposed to Prince’s doctrine, and if that doesn’t convince you that Prince is a heretic, then something is really wrong with your theology!


If you say our evidence isn’t convincing, have you examined them in the first place, and if you did, which part of the evidence isn’t convincing? Tell us, please!


NCCS wrote,


It is our hope and prayer that God will guide all parties concerned towards a selfreflection that will bring honour to God whom we worship and serve together as a body of Christ.


NCCS asked everyone to do a selfreflection that will bring honour to God. Have you yourselves reflected on the teachings of Joseph Prince in the first place? Have you reflected on the tons of resources that I and others have laid out before you, proving that Joseph Prince is a heretic?


If you haven’t or even if you did but if you simply brushed them off, will this bring honour to God? Instead, it will bring shame to God because you, at the highest level of the Singapore Church leadership, don’t even care whether heresies have indeed infiltrated the church, and you don’t even have the courage to do something about it.


Dr Simon Chong wrote as part of his reply to NCCS,


2. Article 5(i): “Every Church and Christian organisation duly registered in Singapore which accepts and subscribes to the Basis of Association and Objects of the council set forth in Articles 3 & 4 hereof, may become a member upon the Council’s acceptance of its application for membership.”

Based on the NCCS’ constitution, I would like to highlight 2 points that would call into question the eligibility of NCC’s membership:


a) Article 3(i): on a common belief that God has revealed His eternal purpose for mankind in His Son, Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the supreme standard of Christian faith and practice, and that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds express our historical common faith;

JP’s assertion that the new covenant begins from the cross thus obsoleting and made redundant the Old Testament and the Life & Words of Jesus prior to the cross already contravene this basis to associate. His repeated wrongful interpretation and application of the Scriptures together with his oft putting down of the Law and his frequent encouragement to his hearers to ignore the Law or any parts thereof of Scriptures that contradicts his personal doctrine of grace, further shows his disdain for many parts of the Scriptures which as in the Article above stated that members ought to uphold as “…THE SUPREME STANDARD of faith & practice…”


I won’t go through the grounds of what Dr Simon Chong has already covered (see above).


And in line with what Dr Simon Chong has stated, Joseph Prince has often denigrated the Old Testament scriptures as no longer applicable to New Covenant believers. Furthermore, he teaches against the law. His teaching against the law is the core of his false grace teachings. This is what we called Antinomianism, a false teaching, that is called out by most theologians. It is a rejection of the law by virtue that grace has dawned. Joseph Prince has gone to the extent of saying that the law, which is given by God kills, causes our death, and that Satan uses God’s law to destroy us, without explaining that sin is the real culprit. For Prince to say that the law which was given by God kills and causes our death, without highlighting that sin was the primary cause, is to blaspheme God.


Joseph Prince has also denigrated the Ten Commandments by stating they are now obsolete.


Martin Luther wrote, “But Satan… he hath raised up a sect as such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church… but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ.”


Luther clearly stated that it was Satan who had influenced a sect to teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church. So obviously, Joseph Prince who teaches the same doctrine must be under the same influence and power of Satan. Is NCCS not aware of this?


I have also provided tons of resources on my website about Prince’s teachings against the Old Testament and the law that NCCS cannot claim ignorance. As for the details of this issue of the law that Joseph Prince disparages, please refer to Volume 7, “Law & Grace Not Law Or Grace” comprising 845 pages of notes. Please click here to read.


Furthermore, Joseph Prince teaches that the God of the Old Testament acts differently from that of the New Testament. While the God of the Old Covenant can be displeased, get angry, punish and judge us, the New Covenant God cannot act in all these ways which are false. Such teachings are pitting the Old Testament against the New and maligning the Old Testament and contravening Article 3(i)… that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the supreme standard of Christian faith and practice.


Don’t miss Dr Roland Chia’s latest article, titled, “Procrustean Bed” (see below) which argues that genuine Christian Faith must uphold both the Old Testament and the New Testament as one unified whole as authoritative for our Christian Faith. This differs from Joseph Prince who makes a strict demarcation between the Old and the New Testaments, and even teaches against much of the Old Testament as no longer binding for New Covenant believers.


Finally, NCCS, by not acting against Joseph Prince and continues to still treat him as a fellow shepherd, means they have ‘silently stated’ their position that Prince isn’t a heretic.


This is despite the fact that there are so many evidence that have already been put forward, not just by me but many others, including:

Bishop Kuan Kim Seng, Dr Roland Chia, Rev Tan Cheng Huat, Rev David Liew, Rev Eric Chua, Elder David Ng Tah Wee, Bishop Andrew Phang, Canon Rev James Juhari, Rev Arnold Rajan, Rev Eric Lee, Rev Kelvin Jawa, Rev Wilston Trin, Rev William Patrick, Pastor Dr Albert S K Chia, Dr Simon Chong, Ho Chee Sin, Wong Kae Chee, Ang Lip Jin, Benjamin Yeo, Eva Kane, Dr Sarah Ambika Dharan, Tan Siew Poh, Soh Kim Seng, Koh Bee Lu, Jindong, John Lim Beo Peng, Wong Sung Ho, Brigadier General (Retired) Andrew Tan, Andrew Kiong, Janet Tan, Lam Chun Mun, Tan Peng Yong & Elsie Tan, Lim Ban Seng, Katherine Tan-Foo, Yvonne Tan, Daniel Khoo, Samuel Zee, Melissa Thangavellu, Daniel Tay, Ivy Bong, Dr Chris Kang, Asher Chee, Andrew Tan, Lindsay Lim, Peter Tok, Glenn Fong & Tony Wong-Jensen, Beatrice Ch’ng, Jason Liew, Wilson Kwan, Loke Sau Yeen, K Paul Raj, Ng Boon Kem, Charles Pitan, Sandy Wong, Chan Lai Ping, Ricky Yoong, Kingston Lee, Matthiew Lau & Anita Lee, that Joseph Prince is a heretic.


This means NCCS is close to committing the sin of engaging in falsehood – that they refuse to act against Joseph Prince despite the massive amounts of evidence and truths that have been placed before them that Prince is a heretic.


NCCS, by refusing to act against Joseph Prince as a heretic, is also to neglect their basic responsibility as Christ’s shepherds of warning the sheep about wolves (Matt 7:15; Tit 1:9,13).


In order to prove their innocence against my accusation, they would have to engage sufficient parts of our evidence that we have laid out on the table. They have to prove that much of our evidence that Joseph Prince is a heretic cannot hold water. But it looks like they haven’t even shown one indication that they have done it at all. This means their minds have already been made up that Joseph Prince isn’t a heretic regardless of the humongous evidence that we have placed before them.


What is unacceptable is that they are hiding behind the constitution to avoid the issue. Even then, we have shown that constitutionally, they can and must act against Joseph Prince, the heretic.


If this is the kind of top-level spiritual leadership we have in Singapore, we are done for and may God help us!


I hereby openly rebuke the Executive Committee of NCCS, by the authority of the scriptures, and what the Lord Jesus has laid down for us as responsible shepherds,


1. that instead of warning the sheep about the wolf and heretic, Joseph Prince, and exposing and expelling him, you have continued to harbour and protect him under the umbrella of NCCS, for him to continue to deceive the sheep and lead them to their eternal destruction.


2. By your silence, you have signalled to Joseph Prince and the Church in Singapore and the world that what Prince preaches is acceptable to Christian Orthodoxy. This would certainly give legitimacy and credibility to his message, and in the days to come his influence will grow even more, and more and more sheep would be deceived and led to their eternal ruin. 


What I have highlighted is an utterly shameful and abominable development for the Singapore Church – that instead of acting against the heretic, Joseph Prince, the top leadership of the Singapore Church is silently colluding with the wolf (by allowing Joseph Prince to operate unhindered under NCCS umbrella) to destroy their own sheep.


“To stay silent against the onslaught of heresies is to acquiesce.” (George Ong)


“To tolerate the spread of heresy without doing anything to curb it is to be a quiet accomplice to the treacherous evil.” (George Ong)


Fellow believers, it’s time to mourn and weep over this sad and revulsive state of affairs that have befallen on the leadership of the Singapore Church.


More details:


1. John Piper, in this link gives five factors to consider when deciding whether to name a false teacher publicly:


a. The seriousness and deceitfulness of the error.

b. The size of the audience. Is it growing?

c. The duration of their ministry. Did they make one blunder or are they constantly doing it?

d. The vulnerability of the people for whom you are responsible.

e. The role you have in influencing shepherds who really need to be discerning for who the false teachers are.


At least the first 3 of what John Piper suggested are totally relevant to Joseph Prince, the heretic.


2. David Kowalski wrote against Joseph Prince’s Modern “Grace Message” – Revolution or Rebellion? Read excerpts as follows:


Its advocates claim the teaching is an end-time message of a “grace revolution” (Joseph Prince) while critics see it as merely a fresh spin given to the rebellious, old heresy of Antinomianism a heresy named in the 16th century by Martin Luther, in which proponents in some manner negate or minimize any application of the obligatory nature of God’s moral law (and/or the implications of that obligation) for believers.


The term “hyper-grace” has become popular to describe the “grace movement” – due in part, I think, to the writings of Michael Brown (see his book). While I agree with Dr. Brown in essence I think the term “hyper-grace” falls short as a moniker for the “grace” movement in the same way the term “hyper-faith” did when people once used it denote the Word-Faith heresy. The problem with the “grace message” is not that it presents us with “hyper-grace” (“hyper” meaning excessive or fanatical) so much as it offers a pseudo (unbiblical and therefore false) “grace” that has for centuries been called Antinomianism.


Calvinists say those who do not persevere in displaying this godly image were never true children to begin with while Arminians say that a child of God can forfeit their heavenly inheritance through a persistent and willful lifestyle of ungodliness. Only Antinomians contradict the New Testament teaching that the ungodly will by no means inherit the kingdom of God:


I have dialogued with followers of Joseph Prince, for example, who have maintained that their misconduct (including unrepentant, homosexual sin) does not matter since God does not even see their evil deeds.


3. David Kowalski wrote against Joseph Prince’s teachings:


4. David Kowalski wrote a sermon and contrasted it with the teachings of Joseph Prince:


Yours Truly,

Rev George Ong



Procrustean Bed – By Dr Roland Chia


Rev George Ong’s Comments:


In this article, the most crucial point that Dr Roland Chia made is in his final two concluding paragraphs:


“Put differently, Scripture is used selectively and arbitrarily to support and substantiate the ‘gospel’ according to Joseph Prince. However, because the ‘gospel’ according to Joseph Prince is not based on the entire counsel of the Word of God, it is a truncated and distorted ‘gospel’.


In reality, it is not the true Gospel at all! In reality, it is a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8), a false gospel.”


If Joseph Prince preaches “a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8), a false gospel,” according to Dr Roland Chia, how can he not be a heretic?


My kudos go to Dr Roland Chia, not just because he is a credible scholar, but more importantly, because he dares to consistently teach and speak the naked truth that Joseph Prince is a heretic who preaches a different and false gospel, especially against the backdrop of compromise, self-preservation and ungodliness even at the highest level of the Christian Church.


Procrustean Bed – By Dr Roland Chia


One of the most profound post-Reformation statements about Holy Scripture, is, in my opinion, found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1563, the doctrinal standard of the Anglican Church. Article VI, titled ‘Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scripture for Salvation’ states that:


Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.


This Article emphasises, as its title suggests, the sufficiency of Scripture for human salvation. But what must not be missed is that when it speaks of Scripture, it is referring to the entire biblical canon comprising the Old and New Testaments.


In the next Article (VII), the Anglican Church is at pains to stress the continuing significance of the Old Testament for Christians. It states that ‘The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind in Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.’


The Article ends by emphasising that the moral laws of God in the OT, especially the Ten Commandments continue to be relevant and binding for Christians. ‘[N]o Christian man whatsoever,’ it asserts, ‘is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.’


This statement by the Anglican Church eloquently articulates Protestant Christianity’s view of Scripture. It is in harmony with the teachings of the magisterial Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.


The new antinomians, of which Joseph Prince is one, however, have departed from this orthodox teaching. They insist that the books and passages of the Bible must be strictly classified as belonging either to the old or new covenant. The portions of Scripture that are placed in the ‘old covenant’ box are no longer binding for Christians.


For example, based on his view that the new covenant was enacted at the cross, Joseph Prince writes in Destined to Reign:


God wants us to be able to rightly divide the Word. He wants us to be astute in rightly dividing and clearly separating what belongs to the old covenant of law and what belongs to the new covenant of grace. He wants us to be able to distinguish what occurred before the cross from what occurred after the cross, and to understand what difference the cross made.


According to Joseph Prince, whatever comes before the cross belongs to the old covenant and therefore should be of no concern to Christians since they are God’s new covenant people. This includes all of the OT, but especially the Ten Commandments. Thus, Prince could assert quite categorically that, ‘with the advent of the new covenant of grace, the Ten Commandments have been made obsolete’ (emphasis in the original).




However, the approach that Joseph Prince has taken to ‘correctly divide the Word’ implies that the teachings of Jesus before his death and resurrection belong to the old covenant. They are therefore not relevant for Christians who belong to the covenant of grace.


Prince puts this across very clearly when he writes:


Whether interpreting the Old Testament, or the words which Jesus spoke in the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), let Jesus and His finished work at the cross be the keys to unlocking all the precious gems hidden in God’s Word. This means that we have to read everything in the context of what He came to do and what He accomplished at the cross for us. For example, some of the things that Jesus said in the four gospels were spoken before the cross—before He died for our sins – and some were said after the cross – when He had already won our complete forgiveness and rightfully given us His righteousness. It is the latter that applies to us (believers under the new covenant) today.


Since I have already critiqued this preposterous proposition in a previous article (published on this website), I shall not rehearse my arguments again here. (If you wish, please click here to view the article.)


But the implications of this statement are staggeringly clear: the bulk of Jesus’ teachings are not for Christians. They must go into the ‘old covenant’ box. Believers who belong to the new covenant need not concern themselves with them!


Now, with a huge chunk of Jesus’ teachings being relegated to the old covenant, it is not surprising that the new antinomians generally privilege the writings of Paul. Andrew van der Merwe puts this across starkly when he writes, ‘Paul preached a different message than Jesus, but for good reason: They were living under different covenants.’


Andrew Farley, another antinomian who wants to bring about a new grace reformation, concurs:


Peter, James, John and Paul wrote epistles about life under the new covenant. Years earlier, Jesus was teaching hopelessness under the old. The audience wasn’t the same. The covenant wasn’t the same. And the teachings aren’t the same.


In a similar vein, Joseph Prince maintains that Paul was the apostle of the new covenant ‘whom God appointed to preach the gospel of grace.’ According to Prince, Paul ‘received more revelation on the new covenant of grace that all the apostles put together, and was responsible for writing more than two-thirds of the New Testament.’ He deserves special privilege among the apostles.


In Destined to Reign, Prince clearly expresses his commitment to preach only the gospel that Paul preaches. He writes:


My only endeavour is to preach the same gospel that Paul preached, and no other gospel. Preaching any other gospel was a serious matter to Paul. In fact, he pronounced a double curse on those who preached a different gospel.


The schema controlling the teachings of the antinomians is quite obvious. Paul’s teachings are to be privileged even over the teachings of Jesus. This is because most of the recorded words of Jesus in the four gospels have no direct relevance for Christians. Unlike Jesus, Paul is the apostle of the new covenant, who ministered after it has been enacted at the death of Christ on the cross. The teachings of the apostle are therefore profoundly relevant to Christians.


This privileging of Paul over Jesus is unheard of in the history of Christianity. Such a move will not only introduce serious distortions to our understanding of the Christian faith. It also downgrades most of the teachings of Jesus, making them quite redundant for Christians because, as Farley puts it, ‘Jesus was teaching hopelessly under the old covenant.’


Like the Ten Commandments, the words of Jesus before the cross have been rendered obsolete by the new antinomians.




But how faithful is Joseph Prince’s preaching and teaching to that of the apostle Paul?


To be sure, Prince and his fellow antinomians put much emphasis on Paul’s statements in his various epistles regarding what Christ has accomplished for the believer. For example, they will shine the torch on Ephesians 1 where Paul declares that in Christ God has ‘blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing’ (Ephesians 1:3).


It is important to note that Prince’s interpretation of these blessings is cast within the framework of his health and wealth theology. This is because, according to him, there is only one gospel – the prosperity gospel.


Consider this interesting statement by Prince:


I have been accused of being one of those health and wealth ‘prosperity gospel’ preachers. Actually, there is no such thing as a ‘prosperity gospel’. There is only one gospel and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ … On the cross, Jesus bore not just our sins, but also our sicknesses, diseases and infirmities, and ‘by his stripes we are healed’ (Isaiah 53:5) … That’s not all, my friend. On the cross, Jesus bore the curse of poverty! … Let me tell you this: It is the devil who wants you sick and poor, but the God I know has paid a heavy price to redeem you from the curse of sickness and poverty!


In this truly remarkable passage, Prince emphatically insists that there is no such thing as a ‘prosperity gospel’. There is only one gospel of Jesus Christ, he asserts. But in describing this gospel Prince delineates the essential tenets of the prosperity gospel!


Now, Joseph Prince and his antinomian friends are fond of emphasising one aspect of Paul’s writings while totally neglecting the others.


What do I mean by this?


Paul’s letters contain declarations and commands, theology and ethics, indicatives and imperatives. For example, in Ephesians, the apostle sets out the indicatives in chapters 1-3, and delineates the imperatives in chapters 4-6. Similarly, in Romans, Paul delineates his theology in chapters 1-11, and then works out the ethical implications in chapters 12-15.


Paul’s logic is simple but clear: because Christians are such-and-such in Christ, they behave in such-and-such a manner.


The new antinomians bring the former (indicatives, declarations) to the centre-stage of their theology of grace while pushing the latter (imperatives, commands) into the margins. In the same way, the new antinomians, such as Joseph Prince, would amplify Paul’s statements about what Christ has done for us but downplay what the apostle has to say about sinful conduct.


Greek mythology tells the story of Procrustes (also known as Polypemon) who owns two beds in which he will compel his victims to lie. If the victim is short, he will put him on a longer bed and stretch his body to make it fit the bed. Conversely, if the victim happens to be longer than the bed, he would cut off his limbs.


The ‘bed of Procrustes’ or the ‘Procrustean bed’ has been used proverbially to refer to forcing someone or something to fit into an unnatural and predetermined mould.


This is exactly what Joseph Prince and his fellow antinomians have done with God’s Word. They have constructed a Procrustean bed with their theology of grace, and then tried to force Scripture into it.


The bits of the Bible that could not fit were simply lopped off and discarded. (They are either chucked into the ‘old covenant’ box, or simply ignored).


There are therefore striking similarities between Joseph Prince and the ancient heretic Marcion.


Unhappy with the canon of Scripture which includes the Old Testament and some New Testament books that still carried the vestiges of the Old Testament, Marcion deviced his own canon. The Marcionite canon, as it was eventually called, only included the books that can fit into the Procrustean bed of Marcion’s understanding of God.


In the same way, only those bits of Scripture that support Joseph Prince’s antinomian theology of grace are placed in the ‘new covenant’ box. The rest are relegated to the ‘old covenant’ box, which is seldom opened because its contents no longer have any relevance or pertinence for Christians.


Put differently, Scripture is used selectively and arbitrarily to support and substantiate the ‘gospel’ according to Joseph Prince. However, because the ‘gospel’ according to Joseph Prince is not based on the entire counsel of the Word of God, it is a truncated and distorted ‘gospel’.


In reality, it is not the true Gospel at all! In reality, it is a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-8), a false gospel.


Dr Roland Chia

Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine

Trinity Theological College

Theological and Research Advisor

Ethos Institute for Public Christianity