Important Announcement:
Seminar: Rapture & Great Tribulation
Dates: 31 Oct & 14 Nov, 9 am to 6 pm (choose one
Saturday)
Cost: $20 (1 lunch, 2 tea-breaks)
Venue: Near Jurong Polyclinic
For Registration, Please fill up the form:
https://forms.gle/33ywvZHAr8kXFkAf6
Part 1: Joseph Prince’s ‘Diabetic Gospel’ & Sugar-Coated Preaching – By Joseph & Sharon Kingsley
Part 2: Rev Yang Tuck Yoong like Joseph Prince, teaches that Leah represents Law & Rachel represents Grace & that the 10 sons of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah are related to Law – By George Ong
Part 3: Joseph Prince is effectively posturing a God who lies as what God had supposedly told him to speak is the lie that Leah was a slave woman and that the 10 sons, instead of four, were born to slave women – By George Ong
Part 4: David Jeremiah and Joseph Prince falsely teach against the scriptures (Rev 14:13, Rev 20:4-5) when they said going through tribulation is not the blessed hope – By George Ong
Part 5: When many Ex New Creation Church members, including the latest, Andrew Lum, who attended NCC for 20 years (2003-2023) are warning that Joseph Prince, as a false teacher, can lead you to eternal destruction, why are the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) and the Alliance of Pentecostal & Charismatic Churches of Singapore (APCCS) keeping silent about warning the Singapore Flock and the world at large? – By George Ong
Part 1: Joseph Prince’s ‘Diabetic Gospel’ & Sugar-Coated Preaching – By Joseph & Sharon Kingsley
Part 2: Rev Yang Tuck Yoong like Joseph Prince, teaches that Leah represents Law & Rachel represents Grace & that the 10 sons of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah are related to Law – By George Ong
On 27 Sep 2026, 3 days ago,
an Ex New Creation Church member and a friend of mine
alerted me to a sermon
that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong preached the same day.
I have listened to the entire sermon
and I encourage you to do that
to be stirred and strengthened by Rev Yang.
If you wish to view the whole sermon of Rev Yang Tuck Yoong,
Please click on the link below:
It was an inspiring sermon with many lessons to be learned,
such as we all must be trained as soldiers of Christ,
ready to fight the warfare,
and even be willing to lay down our lives for the sake of God.
However, I disagree with several points
that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong made.
In the sermon on 27 Sep 2026, last Sunday, 3 days ago,
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong said:
Please click here to view the video:
“But what do Leah and Rachel represent?
Leah represents the law.
Jacob embraced the law first,
though he didn’t want her, by the way.
Rachel speaks of grace and truth in Jesus Christ.”
The Bible, regardless of whether
they are in the Old Testament or the New Testament,
never presents or portrays
Leah as Law and Rachel as Grace.
I say again, never!
So, who gives Rev Yang Tuck Yoong
the authority and right
to teach that Leah represents Law
and Rachel represents Grace.
Obviously, Rev Yang Tuck Yoong
has gone beyond the scriptures
to teach such a symbolism.
In Genesis 29-30,
Leah and Rachel are portrayed as “mere” women,
and not as representatives of two covenants
– Old Covenant Law and New Covenant Grace.
There is nothing in Genesis and the entire Bible that says:
Leah represents Law and Rachel represents Grace.
If Leah represents Law,
what is Genesis saying about Law?
Yes, we all know that Leah is the woman
whom Jacob didn’t really love,
but God repeatedly and graciously blessed her with children.
If Rachel represents Grace, what is that teaching us?
If it is Grace, why was Rachel barren for a considerable period?
Why did Rachel begrudge her sister?
Why did Rachel become desperate,
and gave her maid, Bilhah to Jacob?
What is ironical is that
Rachel, who is supposed to represent Grace,
later died giving birth to Benjamin (Gen 30:1-8; 35:16-20).
All that has happened doesn’t seem to fit the picture
that Leah represents Law and Rachel represents Grace.
What is theologically surprising
is that Leah became the ancestor of Judah,
and therefore, of the Davidic line in which the Messiah,
the Lord Jesus Christ descended from (Gen 29:35; 49:8-10).
What is also ironic in Rev Yang Tuck Yoong’s symbolism,
is that Jesus Christ, who is “full of grace and truth,” (Jn 1:14)
came through Leah,
who supposedly represents Law.
What doesn’t seem to fit Rev Yang Tuck Yoong’s teaching
is that “Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” (Jn 1:17)
who is the descendant of Judah, who, in turn, came from Leah,
whom Rev Yang Tuck Yoong says represents Law.
The most crucial and significant theological point
is that even in the New Testament,
the New Covenant of Grace that we are under,
never makes this linkage
– that Leah represents Law and Rachel represents Grace.
This is because when Paul, under the New Covenant
mentions Law and the promise (or grace),
he never says that Leah represents Law
and Rachel represents Grace.
Instead, Paul utilises Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31,
and he mentions in Galatians 4:24
that he is using them figuratively
to contrast slavery and freedom
and the present Jerusalem and the Jerusalem above.
Paul is teaching that Hagar represents Mount Sinai,
Jerusalem and slavery.
And Sarah represents the promise (grace),
the Jerusalem above and freedom.
Paul uses Jerusalem above symbolically
to represent the New Covenant community
that belongs to God’s promise in Christ.
That is significant, as Paul mentions
that in this Genesis narrative about Sarah and Hagar,
he is using them typologically or allegorically
in Galatians 4:21-31.
More importantly,
when Paul actually interprets
the Genesis narrative typologically in Galatians 4,
he uses Hagar and Sarah to illustrate the contrast
between slavery and freedom;
but he never for one moment says
Leah represents Law and Rachel represents Grace.
Since Rev Yang Tuck Yoong mentions that
Leah represents Law and Rachel symbolizes Grace,
we need to know by whose authority
is he making that connection
as the scripture is totally silent on this issue.
There is also an important point that we need to take note
– that as far as I know,
the Bible does not teach that Law is inherently bad
and, as opposed to that, Grace is good.
The scripture never pits them as opposing forces.
That is why Paul in Romans 7:12 says:
“The law is holy, and the commandment is holy,
righteous and good.”
He also in Romans 3:31 says
“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all!
Rather, we uphold the law.”
At the same time, Paul has a high view of Grace.
That’s why he teaches that salvation is anchored in God’s grace
and never by human works (Eph 2:8-9; Rom 3:28).
So the Bible does not portray Leah as representing Law,
which is negative,
and in opposition to that,
that Rachel as portraying Grace,
which is positive.
There is a further complication to this identification.
If Leah represents Law,
why did God ultimately open Leah’s womb:
“When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved,
he enabled her to conceive.” (Gen 29:31)
But then later, God too opened Rachel’s womb:
“Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her
and enabled her to conceive.” (Gen 30:22)
So the picture is not so much that Leah represents Law
and Rachel represents Grace,
but that both are recipients of God’s Grace
as both barren wombs were opened by God Himself.
The identification that Leah represents Law
and Rachel represents Grace can also be problematic.
This is because Leah is not presented
as a symbol of something spiritually negative or inferior.
God indeed sees her suffering,
and graciously opens her womb
and gives her children.
Also, and most importantly, through Leah comes Judah,
and that’s where the Davidic Line and ultimately Messiah,
the Lord Jesus Christ who is “full of grace” (Jn 1:14)
is descended from.
On the other hand, if Rachel represents Grace;
what she went through seems to complicate her portrayal,
as she experiences prolonged barrenness, jealousy,
desperation, and eventually dies in childbirth.
There is also another more problematic reason
for Rev Yang Tuck Yoong to link Rachel with Grace.
This is because no Bible concordance
ascribes the name of Rachel anywhere
close to the meaning of grace.
I’ve personally checked the following five sources:
Strong’s Concordance,
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance,
NAS Exhaustive Concordance,
Englishman’s Concordance,
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon.
None of these authoritative sources
relate the name of Rachel to Grace.
Next, in the sermon on 27 Sep 2026, last Sunday, 4 days ago,
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong said:
Please click here to view the video:
“What did the law bring forth?
Ten sons.
And these ten sons came from Leah,
and the two bond servants.
And by the way, these bond servants,
as Paul referred to them in Galatians,
as the old covenant, alright?”
What Rev Yang Tuck Yoong is saying is that
the ten sons of Leah,
and the 2 bond (slave) women, Bilhah and Zilpah,
and Law
are connected,
and he alluded to that bond servants,
which, presumably, also included Bilhah and Zilpah
in Galatians 4
as referring to the Old Covenant.
First, there is nowhere in the scriptures
that connects the ten sons of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah with Law
– not even a hint.
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong, by claiming that the 10 sons
of Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah are born of the Law,
is certainly out of place with what the scriptures has revealed.
These 10 sons are not another category of people.
But they are part of Jacob’s descendants,
and they are ancestors of the 12 tribes of Israel.
The 12 are:
Leah: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun.
Bilhah: Dan, Naphtali. Zilpah: Gad, Asher;
while Rachel’s two sons Joseph and Benjamin
constitute the remaining two.
If Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah represent the Law,
and their 10 children are born of Law,
why does Genesis present their 10 sons
together with Joseph and Benjamin
as the twelve tribes of Israel,
rather than distinguishing these 10 as the children of the Law
and the other two as the children of Grace?
There is nowhere in scripture
that teaches that Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah represent the Law,
or that their 10 sons born through these women
are born of Law.
But what is unacceptable is that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong
went on to make the connection
that the 2 bond (slave) women, Bilhah and Zilpah,
were mentioned in Galatians 4
as representing the Old Covenant.
The truth is what was mentioned in Galatians 4:21-31
is not Bilhah and Zilpah,
but Hagar, another bond or slave woman.
Although like Hagar,
Bilhah and Zilpah were bond (slave) women,
they have nothing to do with the theological point
that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong wants to make
out of Galatians 4:21-31.
The point that Paul was trying to make in Galatians 4:21-31
is that God’s covenantal promise
is with the spiritual descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
– and not Ishmael.
And that those who are under the promise (of grace)
are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Sarah),
and those who are under the flesh (or law)
are the descendants of Ishmael (Hagar).
So not only were Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah
not mentioned in Galatians 4:21-31,
the 12 sons of Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah
were also totally absent in the same passage.
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong has conveniently
but dishonestly slips in something – Bilhah and Zilpah
into Galatians 4 just to support his teaching.
This is totally out of place
for a top Christian leader in Singapore to do that.
Again, one must note that Bilhah and Zilpah
are not part of Paul’s argument in Galatians 4:21-31.
Yes, Hagar is a bondwoman,
and Paul uses Hagar allegorically in Galatians 4:21-31.
But this does not mean,
therefore, every bondwoman in Genesis or the scriptures
must have the same figurative meaning.
Scripture does not for one moment
teach that every bondwoman represents Law.
So, Rev Yang Tuck Yoong, by suggesting,
“Bilhah and Zilpah were also bond (slave) women;
therefore, they must represent the Law,”
is actually adding symbols
to Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 4:21-31
that Paul himself never includes.
Additionally, the argument is not “Bilhah and Zilpah”
were slave women, and therefore they are equated to Law.
The truth is, even though they were slave women,
God used them to procreate
(Bilhah’s sons were Dan and Naphtali,
Zilpah’s sons were Gad and Asher)
and contribute 4 of the 12 tribes of Israel
– God’s covenantal people.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument
and following the line of thought of Rev Yang Tuck Yoong,
which lineage do you think
would represent grace more
– Rachel or Leah?
Of course, Rev Yang Tuck Yoong
had already stated his preference
– that Rachel represents Grace.
But I beg to differ.
I would say, Leah, not Rachel, would represent grace more,
as Leah is the mother of Judah (one of the six sons of Leah)
who is the ancestor of Jesus Christ,
the personification of grace (Jn 1:14, 16-17).
Did you catch that?
So, the gross mistake that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong has committed
is when he said Leah represents Law
and that Law brought forth ten sons
(through Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah).
This means all of Leah’s 6 children, including Judah,
who is the ancestor of Jesus, the personification of grace
were born of Law.
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong is effectively implying that Christ,
who descended from Judah
represents only Law and not Grace.
How can Christ, who personifies grace
not be representing grace?
You can’t get anything more bizarre than that!
In summary, let me reiterate
that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong’s teaching
that Leah represents Law and Rachel represents Grace,
& the 10 children from Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah are born of Law,
while the other 2 from Rachel are born of Grace,
has absolutely no support from the scriptures at all.
First, both are wives of Jacob.
Second, both contribute
towards the eventual composition of the 12 tribes of Israel
through their children
and the children of their maid servants: Bilhah and Zilpah.
So, the real picture as portrayed in the Bible
is that even though there were human weaknesses
as seen in the rivalry between Leah and Rachel,
nonetheless, God uses Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah
to contribute towards the formation of the 12 tribes of Israel
– God’s covenantal people.
Eventually, they are not divided into
Team A: Leah as Law
or Team B: Rachel as Grace.
But they are in the same team
used by God to achieve His covenantal purposes.
Finally, let me say again
that the teaching that Leah represents Law
and Rachel represents Grace
is not taught anywhere in the scriptures.
If Rev Yang Tuck Yoong
chooses to go along this line in his teaching,
then he is going beyond the scriptures,
and for a leader of such high standing,
who is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Community Church,
Chairman of Tung Ling Bible College,
Founder & Director of the Bible School of Wales (in Wales),
and the Chairman of the Alliance of Pentecostal
& Charismatic Churches of Singapore (APCCS),
to do that,
is definitely not the wisest thing to do.
Part 3: Joseph Prince is effectively posturing a God who lies as what God had supposedly told him to speak is the lie that Leah was a slave woman and that the 10 sons, instead of four, were born to slave women – By George Ong
In a sermon, Joseph Prince said:
Please click here to view the video:
“I endeavour to preach as the oracles of God.
Oracles of God doesn’t mean
that every word must be from scripture
like line upon line,
everything from scripture.
Yes, it must be based on scriptures.
And I think I have a lot of scripture verses
down through the years,
I preach from a lot of scripture verses.
But speaking as the oracles of God
means you speak as if God is speaking through you.
And God will never deviate from the scriptures.”
Joseph Prince claimed that he has spoken the oracles of God,
and that
“means you speak as if God is speaking through you.”
Joseph Prince also said that whatever is spoken for God
“must be based on scriptures.”
as
“God will never deviate from the scriptures.”
Those who have closely followed the articles
written against Joseph Prince on this website
may feel like vomiting
as Joseph Prince, who claimed that he is speaking for God
had lied
because he had spoken against God
and against the scriptures.
This is proven time and again on this website.
I want to give you concrete evidence
that Joseph Prince is a liar
and that he lied about facts in scripture,
and, hence, he also lied
that he is speaking the oracles of God,
meaning God is speaking to him and through him.
Although I have featured this before,
there will be those who may not have come across this.
Here is my evidence.
In a sermon, Joseph Prince said:
Please click here to view the video:
“I believe I have a prophetic word from the Lord
for you, tonight.
It’s a prophetic word.
It is on the Benjamin generation.
You know, God put in my heart
before I came for this conference, that tonight
He wants me to share this prophetic word;
during a time of famine,
when God releases Benjamin before Joseph,
there’ll be bread in the land.
Of all the characters, of all the personalities in the Bible,
no one particular character typifies our Lord clearly
or more clearly than the person of Joseph.
When you look at Joseph and his brothers,
you find that he had 11 brothers.
But there’s only one
who shares the same mother with Joseph.
And that is, Benjamin.
The other 10 were born of bond women – slaves
– their mothers Bilhah, Zilpah
and Leah were slave women.
So, the 10 brothers represent the law
– the 10 Commandments.
Joseph’s mother, Joseph and Benjamin’s mother
was Rachel.
Rachel represents grace.”
Joseph Prince is blatantly lying about facts in scripture,
and, more seriously, that God is speaking to him.
Joseph Prince said:
Please click here to view the video:
“The other 10, they were born of bond women – slaves
– their mothers Bilhah, Zilpah
and Leah were slave women.”
But Leah was not a slave woman.
Joseph Prince is lying through his teeth.
Leah was the elder sister of Rachel and the first wife of Jacob.
Both Leah and Rachel were free women, not slaves.
Therefore, Leah was not a slave woman,
as Joseph Prince had falsely stated.
Leah had 6 sons.
Rachel had 2 sons: Joseph and Benjamin.
So, a total of 8 were free sons,
born of free women to Leah and Rachel, who were not slaves.
The two other wives of Jacob were Bilhah and Zilpah,
who were both slave women.
Bilhah and Zilpah had 2 sons each.
So, a total of 4 sons were born of the two slave women.
To recap,
8 free sons
and just 4 sons were born of slave women,
and not 2 free sons
and 10 sons who were born of slave women
as Joseph Prince has lied.
Furthermore, Joseph Prince said:
Please click here to view the video:
“I believe I have a prophetic word for you tonight.
It’s a prophetic word.
Joseph Prince claimed
he has received a prophetic word from the Lord
and that God wanted him to share the prophetic word.
Let me ask you a question that even a child could answer.
Could God have given Joseph Prince a prophetic word,
when he went against facts of the scripture
and falsely declared that Leah was a slave woman
and that 10 were sons of slave women
when there were only 4?
Of course not!
Could God have given Joseph Prince a prophetic word
that speaks against His own word in the Bible?
No way!
Joseph Prince had told a lie that God had spoken to him
as God will never speak against
the facts of His own written word
– when Joseph Prince lied that Leah was a slave woman
and that 10 sons were born to slave women.
Imagine, Joseph Prince dares to even lie
about facts in the Bible,
all for his game plan of conning people
into accepting his grace teaching.
So, is it really the voice of God
that speaks the prophetic word to Joseph Prince?
Of course not.
If it is not God’s voice, then whose voice?
It’s the devil’s voice – period.
It’s the devil who has given Joseph Prince the power
to deceive the millions
even though much of what he is preaching
is stark heresy, bizzare doctrine and theological rubbish.
Yet, Joseph Prince dares to declare
that it was God who spoke to him,
and hence, he had used God’s name in vain.
This is the kind of man you are dealing with
who has no qualms about flippantly invoking God’s name
just to further his own evil agenda
of promoting his Pseudo-grace theology.
This is not the first time Joseph Prince has done it
– about the God who spoke to me thing.
He has done it many times in his books and teachings.
Joseph Prince is effectively posturing a God who lies
as what God had supposedly told him to speak
is the lie that Leah was a slave woman
and that the 10 sons, instead of four,
were born to slave women.
To conclude, when I have revealed
such devastating and damaging evidence
against the character of Joseph Prince
as a person and his teachings,
the only conclusion one can come to
is that he is a heretic and a wolf in sheepskin.
Against such overwhelming evidence
that Joseph Prince had lied against
the scriptures and God Himself,
and yet, Joseph Prince still has the audacity and shamelessness
to claim that he is speaking the oracles of God,
can really make one vomit.
Again, a crucial reminder
– this is not the first time he lied against the scriptures.
Joseph Prince had lied against Father God,
the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit many times,
as they have been proven on this website.
Part 4: David Jeremiah and Joseph Prince falsely teach against the scriptures (Rev 14:13, Rev 20:4-5) when they said going through tribulation is not the blessed hope – By George Ong
In the rapture seminar, George Ong said:
Please click here to view the video:
Andrew Kiong from St Andrew’s Cathedral
attended the seminar on 4 July this year (2026),
and he wrote:
“I first attended Rev George Ong’s Rapture seminar
about 10 years ago,
but this time, it’s even better.
Many Biblical time-sequence verses are shown
and much more.
I highly recommend this seminar
for those who sincerely desire to learn the truth
of what the Word of God says
about the sequence of the Rapture,
and the appearing of our Blessed Hope!
Which of Pre, Mid or Post Trib Rapture
is the true biblical position?
Whichever view one holds though,
for sure it’s not a salvation issue,
BUT believing in the wrong position
may very well cost one to be ill-prepared
when faced with end-time persecution.
Of the 3 positions taught by scholars,
only one is correct
and thus 66% of scholars can be wrong.
That’s why as Berean Christians
we need to investigate and discern for ourselves
the true position.”
Part 5: When many Ex New Creation Church members, including the latest, Andrew Lum, who attended NCC for 20 years (2003-2023) are warning that Joseph Prince, as a false teacher, can lead you to eternal destruction, why are the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) and the Alliance of Pentecostal & Charismatic Churches of Singapore (APCCS) keeping silent about warning the Singapore Flock and the world at large? – By George Ong
This morning, 1 Oct 2026,
an Ex New Creation Church member,
Josiah Yip, and a friend of mine,
sent me a YouTube video link.
This link is about another Ex New Creation Church member,
Andrew Lum,
who, in the video,
identified Joseph Prince as the end-time false teacher.
Andrew Lum, who attended NCC for 20 years (2003-2023),
is a friend of mine.
My first contact with him
was when he first wrote to me twice on 22 and 29 January 2024
about Joseph Prince’s heresies,
and we subsequently met at my residence 2 to 3 times.
At that time, Andrew Lum said
he wanted to remain anonymous.
But I am so glad, recently,
Andrew Lum has received a call from God
to produce a video about Joseph Prince,
and publicly declared him as a false teacher.
If you wish to view the entire video of Andrew Lum,
Please click on the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl_RtW5L_hY
In an excerpt of the video, Andrew Lum said:
Please click here to view the video:
There are 2 issues in the video
that I disagree with Andrew Lum:
first, is about rapture and tribulation,
and the other is the identification
of Apollos as a type of a false teacher.
But these are not crucial to the matter at hand
– that Joseph Prince is now publicly declared by Andrew Lum
as a false teacher.
Let me share with you
the heart-cry and plea of Yvonne Tan,
another Ex New Creation Church member
for 20 years (end 1999 to Jan 2021)
for the National Council Churches of Singapore
to act decisively for the sake of their sheep.
This is part of her testimony
that was featured on this website; she wrote:
“Finally, in the light of my painful discovery
about the heretical teachings of Joseph Prince,
I begin to wonder
why is the spiritual leadership in Singapore
so silent about publicly warning the sheep about it?
Is the fact that Joseph Prince is a heretic
not obvious to them?
Were what I’ve highlighted in my testimony
about the many false teachings of Joseph Prince
not enough to convince them?
And what I’ve highlighted are not even exhaustive,
and the many more of Joseph Prince’s false teachings
can be found in Rev George Ong’s website.
Are they aware of Rev George Ong’s website
and have they even bothered
to read a portion of his resources in the first place?
This is important because as I have shared,
reading all 10 volumes in the 4,800 pages of his notes
and viewing many of his videos on his website
had played a big and crucial part
in the removal of my spiritual blindness
and in totally convincing me
that Joseph Prince is a heretic.
Do the rest in New Creation Church, and others
in the many churches in Singapore
who are influenced by Joseph Prince’s teachings,
need to take 20 years, like me,
to finally discover
that Joseph Prince is a wolf in sheepskin?
I sincerely hope not.
I have not even taken into account
the emotional trauma and pain
that I went through to finally discover
what I had sincerely believed to be true
for all these 20 years,
had all turned out to be false.
All my 20 years may not have been wasted
if the spiritual leadership in Singapore
would have made this clear
about the heretical teachings
of Joseph Prince at the outset.
But what if I didn’t make this discovery
that Joseph Prince is a wolf in sheepskin?
I would be damned
as to embrace the teachings of a false prophet
such as Joseph Prince,
is to end up in the same dark destiny as he would.
It’s time for the spiritual leadership of Singapore
to cease its silence.
It’s time for them to take responsibility
to warn every sheep in Singapore
and the other nations about the heretic, Joseph Prince,
as their eternal destiny hangs in the balance.”
I, George Ong, am also not the only one to
declare that Joseph Prince is preaching heresy.
All the following Ministers have publicly declared
that Joseph Prince is a heretic:
Bishop Ho Chee Sin (Methodist),
Bishop Kuan Kim Seng (Anglican),
Bishop Andrew Phang (Anglican),
Dr Roland Chia (Methodist),
Rev Tan Cheng Huat (Presbyterian),
Canon Rev James Juhari (Anglican),
Rev David Liew (Methodist),
Rev Lawrence Yam (Baptist),
Rev Eric Chua (Presbyterian),
Rev Arnold Rajan (Pentecostal),
Rev Eric Lee (Assembly of God),
Rev Kelvin Jawa (Anglican),
Rev Momoh Sylvester Foh (Lutheran),
Rev Goutam Datta,
Rev Wilston Trin (Anglican),
Rev William Patrick (Assembly of God),
Pastor Dr Albert S K Chia (Independent),
Elder Ng Tah Wee (Presbyterian),
Dr Simon Chong (Methodist),
and many others…
If this is the case,
is that not enough for NCCS & APCCS
to act against the heretic, Joseph Prince?
How can you have a so-called Pastor
who preaches heresy and a heretic
to be on the same Christian Council (NCCS)?
Let’s just assume that NCCS has no authority
because of their constitution
to call out Joseph Prince as a false prophet
(which I don’t believe at all;
even so, has it occurred to them to change the constitution
so that they can call out a heretic, a heretic),
what about they doing it as denominational heads?
You must remember that 6 of the 12
who sit on the executive committee of NCCS
are denomination heads.
Are they telling me that there is also a constitution
in each of these 6 denominations
that forbids them from exposing Joseph Prince
as a false prophet?
Ridiculous!
What is worse is that Rev Yang Tuck Yoong,
the Chairman of APCCS calls the heretic,
Joseph Prince, as a dear friend, who loves Jesus.
Rev Yang Tuck Yoong wrote:
“It is so good to catch up with a dear friend,
Ps Joseph Prince.
We might differ in some areas of theology
but he loves Jesus, that’s for sure.”
These videos/articles were sent to Bishop Philip Lim, President of the National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) and Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian, General Secretary and for the attention of the Executive Committee Members.
This video was also sent to the Alliance of Pentecostal & Charismatic Churches of Singapore (APCCS), for the attention of the Chairman, Rev Yang Tuck Yoong & Co Chairman, Rev Dominic Yeo (General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God of Singapore) and Council Members.