Dr Chris Kang’s Testimony about His 2-Year Journey with New Creation Church (2016-2018) and Why Hypergrace is not Biblical (Dated 23 June 2021)
Dr Chris Kang’s Testimony about His 2-Year Journey with New Creation Church (2016-2018) and Why Hypergrace is not Biblical (Dated 23 June 2021)
Rev George Ong’s Opening Remarks:
It was indeed a divine appointment for me to get connected with Dr Chris Kang, who is a scholar in Christian Theology and Asian philosophies and has a Ph.D. in Studies in Religion (2003). He attended New Creation Church for 2 years (2016-2018). About a month ago, he bumped into my website, and recently, wrote an encouraging note to me:
“Dear Rev Ong, thank you very much for your wonderful and conscientious work in the Lord. Your expositions (on your website) have corroborated and confirmed my deep misgivings about Joseph Prince’s hypergrace ideology.
To the extent that I now am certain that he preaches a false “gospel” that leads many to destruction. I deeply appreciated your videos, testimonies of ex-New Creation Church members… We’ve also been sharing your website with our family and friends who are in New Creation Church…”
The following article by Dr Chris Kang against the hypergrace teachings of Joseph Prince mustn’t be missed. It has a scholarly slant, and yet, much of it sits well with the common man. Though it is rather lengthy, it is full of meat and substance.
Believe me – missing out on reading this article would only be your loss. (Don’t miss my important closing remarks at the end of his article.)
Hypergrace Is Not Biblical: A Personal Journey – By Dr Chris Kang
This essay is a personal testimony of my faith journey from 2014 to the present day. It is highly summarized and covers only significant milestones and main points. I am writing this to make a stand, theologically and spiritually, against what I’ve come to conclude as the false gospel of hypergrace. It is time.
I came to faith in Christ in 2014 during my sabbatical meditation retreat as a Buddhist teacher. The Lord broke into my meditation and convicted me of who He was and what He had done for me on the cross. My life and world shattered completely. My tears flowed freely. My posture often prostrate before Him on the floor. It was utterly unexpected. Shot through with grief, not of personal loss but of how long it took for me to come to know Him, after so many twists and turns in my spiritual life. I was 44 then. Yet deeply joyous and clarifying, fresh with the fragrance of new possibilities and adventures with Him. I stopped being a Buddhist teacher, scholar, and practitioner. I had given my life to Christ.
Ironically, the catalyst that triggered my spiritual conversion was a sermon I serendipitously heard over the TV one early Sunday morning. We had been living and working in Australia for 18 years by then. It was Channel Ten. This sermon was preached by Pastor Joseph Prince of New Creation Church (NCC) in Singapore, broadcasted in Australia through his extensive TV ministry. Another catalyst was a video animation of What Happened at Calvary? produced by the same church. Together, they evoked in me a deep curiosity and awe at the person and work of Christ. My meditation retreat was increasingly directed towards contemplating Jesus and inquiring into His being and finished work. Then, it happened. A totally unexpected and overwhelming revelation of the truth: that Jesus was the Word who was God made flesh; was crucified on the cross for me bearing all my sin and penalty of sin; and accomplished something no one else had done or is able to do – not Buddha, not Shiva, not Krishna, not Dalai Lama, not any Guru or Lama or Master of whatever stripe past, present, and future. Jesus was the real deal. He did it freely and willingly out of self-emptying, self-sacrificial love for me.
I was thankful for Joseph Prince’s ministry that provided the nudges for my conversion. My wife had been a believer from a young age. She re-dedicated herself to Christ soon after my conversion. I made several short trips to Singapore and witnessed Christ to my parents and younger brother. They too decided to give their lives to Jesus. They began attending NCC. Since then, I’ve written testimonies to NCC to give credit where it was due. Meanwhile, back in Australia, I became involved with a charismatic hypergrace church in Australia and served as an intern assistant pastor there. It was a terrible experience. I left. If not for my next church, a Presbyterian one this time, I would have been left with a very dim view of church life. While it was not exactly a suitable church for me, I made a few good friends and the pastor there was kind and helpful.
In 2016, I was offered an academic professorial position at one of the universities in Singapore and we left Australia for my hometown. A beautiful family from our Presbyterian church helped take over some of our furniture and digital piano for which we are thankful. Back in Singapore, my wife and I chose to explore other churches instead of New Creation Church (NCC) as we wanted to get a broader exposure to the wider Christian community. Something in my heart was telling me to get a clearer and less biased view of the territory. Perhaps this was part of my academic training. Perhaps this was the Holy Spirit nudging me. We settled at an evangelical church in Singapore for a while. We served there. My parents eventually decided to return to NCC. We soon followed, after a rather exhausting stint at that evangelical church.
But by August 2018, I was getting increasingly suspicious of Prince’s theology and averse to how he came across as a person and a pastor. I was unimpressed and left to look for a more biblically-grounded and gospel-centred church. By this time, my own studies of the bible and theology had formed my perspective towards a more or less Reformed one: more Calvinistic than not, Baptistic in many ways especially with regards to water baptism, but open to a hospitable view of denominational distinctives. Pastorally, Tim Keller and John Piper were two major influences on my thinking. Theologically, Thomas F. Torrance was a key influence though I read other theologians and biblical scholars like Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Michael Horton, N. T. Wright, Don A. Carson, Amos Yong, Simon Chan, Hans Boersma, Cornelius Van Til, John H. Coe, Michael J. McClymond, and from further afield Reformed luminaries like John Owen and Jonathan Edwards.
All in all, I was seeking to live out my calling from God which led me to undertake another pastoral internship, this time at a much healthier church in the Reformed tradition. In a supportive discerning community of elders and fellow brethren in Christ, it became clear to me that I was not called to be pastor (at least not in the traditional sense of the word, in the context of a highly dynamic city church). Eventually, I left. I no longer could identify with the ambitious corporate thrust and what I perceive as the expansionist vision of a well-resourced church stretching itself too thinly too quickly.
It was again time to enter into sabbatical contemplation. I heard very clearly from the Lord to “continue” with what I had been doing just before I encountered Him. I was to wait upon Him in quietness and trust, in silence and solitude, and to integrate all my life’s learnings into a fresh new vision for my life and ministry. That I did. Then the pandemic hit. Things went into lockdown. Church went online. Over time, I was able to “visit” several churches online and sampled their teachings. A little encouragement here and there. No one church resonated. Then TGC21 (The Gospel Coalition Conference 2021) happened, for which I was glad. The conference speeches were greatly inspiring and good reminders of solid biblical doctrines. I completed a seven-week Faith and Work module with Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, all online.
From 2020 to 2021, I tuned in from time to time to Joseph Prince’s sermons at NCC but found them bland, incoherent, repetitive, and often unhinged. I could no longer bear to listen to this preacher. It turned out many others had felt the same. Finding Rev. George Ong’s website was a nice surprise. I found many of the testimonies revealing and concurring with my own experience with Prince and his theology. I was delighted to read Asher Chee’s testimony and watch his video critiques of Joseph Prince’s false teachings and sleight-of-hand tricks.
The cogent testimony of Andrew Tan, a Christ-believer and 20-year member of NCC, warns of “false theological teachings” of Joseph Prince and critiques the “modus operandi” of his megachurch. Reading it, I found myself nodding in agreement. You can read it for yourself here. While I appreciated elements of Prince’s teachings from my earliest encounter with them since 2014, I have also come to question many of what I consider the excesses, hubris, carelessness, and errors of his theology. My own journey has taken me more deeply into mainline Reformed theology and a range of respected Bible teachers across denominational divides. Reading and reflecting on the Bible from cover to cover, and some portions many times over, helps immensely. If anything, it gives me a good survey of the land and gives me some guardrails against pulpit teachings that are unhinged and off the rails.
My critiques on the prosperity pseudo-gospel usually stemming from the Word of Faith/New Thought movement have been part of my process of critical biblical inquiry. I feel glad that the Christian church is becoming more aware and insightful than before on what constitutes the true gospel as opposed to its facsimiles or fakes, as evidenced by global cross-denominational initiatives like The Gospel Coalition (TGC). Desiring God is another great resource with much food for thought. The TGC has a list of resources and readings on the prosperity pseudo-gospel and its dangers which is well worth looking into. Read them here. Comparing Scripture and what solid biblical teachings say as opposed to what false teachings promise, I put it like this: the prosperity pseudo-gospel is like sugar-coated poison. If the poison doesn’t get you first, the sugar most certainly will. Spiritual diabetes and its systemic complications are anything but trivial.
Here, I provide a sample selection of my grave concerns around hypergrace. It is not meant to be exhaustive or comprehensive but a cursory survey to highlight some serious problems with Prince’s hypergrace ideology that should never be trivialized. These are my observations and thoughts based on my reading of books and hearing of sermons by Joseph Prince as well as from my participation in NCC from 2016 to 2018. More recently, reading the testimonies of ex-NCC believers and listening to talks by Rev. George Ong further corroborated my own conclusions:
(1) Hypergrace is a false theology rooted in the semi-heretical Word of Faith movement spawned by E. W. Kenyon and popularized by Kenneth E. Hagin in America in the 1960s. The spiritual source of such teachings is highly suspect, probably even demonic.
(2) Hypergrace spouts a straw-man argument fallaciously claiming that if one argues biblically against praying for wealth, this automatically means one wishes to be poor – a false slanderous claim.
(3) Preacher hubris of assuming a prophetic mantle in the face of evidence of unsubstantiated statements made in the name of so-called ‘prophecy.’
(4) Commodification of the gospel that turns the church into a shopping mall of buying and selling where only the financially well-off could afford the goods.
(5) Defensive attitude and rhetoric against non-hypergrace or ‘legalistic’ churches. Anti-intellectualism that mocks people with a Ph.D. or are professors (I’ve seen and heard Prince do this multiple times).
(6) Theological legalism and antinomianism both ingrained in hypergrace teachings.
(7) Erroneous teachings on the moral law of God, confession of sins, sin-consciousness, and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
(8) Plethora of hypergrace actions (such as bold declarations, positive confessions, “faith as the hand that takes,” partaking the Lord’s Supper like prescribed medicine, “possessing one’s possessions” and more) become a de-facto hypergrace law for devotees.
(9) Wealth and health of believers become surrogate measures of their faith or lack thereof, a twisted form of legalistic materialism. Intended or not, this is a direct consequence of twisted hypergrace teachings on prosperity.
(10) Intellectual dishonesty and carelessness in handling the Word of God (e.g. misquoting of Greek scholar Thayer; idiosyncratic erroneous readings of Scripture passed off as biblical truth).
(11) Marked absence of biblical teachings on the Great Commission and sanctification of believers in Christ, with corollary zero emphasis on spiritual formation, spiritual disciplines, and means of grace in Christian living.
(12) Shallow and shaky theological foundations with no inquiry into the nature and economy of the triune God; the incarnation of Christ; and life in the Trinity; and absence of any theology of suffering and tribulation in Christian living, for example.
(13) Over-realized eschatology that prematurely brings into this present time the fulfilment (at least in part) of eschatological promises of God effective only during the new heavens and new earth. This is a theological error of confusing inaugurated eschatology with realized eschatology with consequential incitement of greed and covetousness for worldly goods of the present age.
(14) Poorly-structured thematic sermons fail to adequately treat the Word with the care it deserves, with complete absence of systematic expository preaching so necessary to good understanding of the Word.
(15) Constant fixation on worldly concerns (e.g. good looks, attractive stage appearance, cosmesis and hairstyles, fancy fashion and handbags, luxury cars, monetary windfall from gambling) as material signs of God’s blessings rather than on the glory of God in Himself (the “eye-ball” principle which means that worldly people get attracted to God through seeing how God materially prospers His people, notwithstanding the hypocrisy and disingenuity of supposed conversions of faith stemming from this).
(16) Opaque financial accountability and lack of transparency to rank and file congregants fail to inspire trust and confidence in the stewardship, integrity, and priorities of the church leadership.
(17) Blurring of lines between Joseph Prince Ministries, NCC, and Joseph Prince himself in a way that obfuscates the financial accountability and transparency of their opaque interrelationships. As an illustration, it is like an academic running his own company, using the facilities and resources of the university that appoints him (albeit in honorary capacity), to drive business to his company with no proper lines of financial reporting and accountability made clear to fee-paying students and sponsors of that university.
As spiritual seekers and believers alike, we really cannot delegate our due diligence to the pulpit (of any church). Sadly, not everything that springs from that place is authentic, beneficial, and salvational. Wisdom is much needed. And God help us in our discernment and grant us courage to speak truth to power.
I elaborate on my critique as follows by focusing on several of the above points.
Denouncing the False
(a) Straw-man fallacy
Joseph Prince’s hypergrace teaching is intimately linked to the Word of Faith prosperity pseudo-gospel. According to Prince’s own admission, he stands upon the shoulders of people like Kenneth E. Hagin, father of the Word of Faith heresy in America in the 1960s that spawned the prosperity pseudo-gospel and its later iterations.
There are other hypergrace teachers besides Prince, of course. One cynical statement I’ve heard prosperity pseudo-gospel preachers make goes something like this: “Oh, you religious-minded people, if you don’t like praying for more money, you can always pray for poverty! And I can have your money if you don’t want it!” I’ve heard Prince speak in the same vein.
This is absolute garbage, an intellectually dishonest straw-man argument that simultaneously mocks and slanders those who critique the obsession with wealth on the part of prosperity pseudo-gospel devotees. Not hankering after more money, not praying covetously for wealth does not equate with desiring to be poor! Just as I not wanting to eat satay sticks does not automatically mean I want to eat celery sticks. (Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with either satay or celery.) Well, perhaps logic is just not one of these preachers’ spiritual gifts.
(b) Prophetic hubris
I’m not a cessationist. By that I mean I do not believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on believers of Christ have ceased. Rather I’m a continuationist and believe that such gifts continue to operate in the church. For example, the gift of prophecy. But when it comes to ascertaining genuine recipients of these gifts, it is incumbent upon us to be extremely careful. Not everyone who claims they are God’s prophet is actually one.
Quacks and con-artists abound and so do ego-insecurity and megalomania. Many are only too keen to claim the mantle of a prophet whose every word from the pulpit is prophetic teaching. Many such false prophets plant themselves in the lucrative religious market these days, only too eager to sell themselves and their wares to unsuspecting consumers and the faithful alike, aided by slick marketing nous and corporate gimmicks.
The gospel of Christ has been butchered, bastardized, commodified and sold for profit in temple courtyards and shopping malls. This reminds me of a dramatic incident in the gospel accounts when Jesus overturned the tables at the Jewish Temple:
Matthew 21:12-13 (ESV)
And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Yes, I do believe that gifts of the Spirit including prophecy can continue to operate in the church. But the exercise of due diligence and discernment, grounded in robust theological understanding and spiritual maturity, is absolutely necessary before coming to any conclusion. Even then, ongoing weighing up of evidence coupled with constant theological vigilance and biblical deliberation are needed. It is simply not kosher to indulge in premature evacuation of our intellect into the cesspit of blind adulation and personality cultism. The sin of idolatry is a grave one. Lest we forget. I’ve heard Prince claim he preaches prophetically, whatever that means. But is he a true prophet? I don’t think so. Watch this salient video where Rev. George Ong reveals the deceptiveness of Joseph Prince’s so-called prophecy on the coronavirus.
(c) Cultish defensiveness
Asher Chee’s powerful and clear testimony on his journey of discerning faith and wisdom in Christ is an illuminating read. You can read it here. I pray there are many more believers like Asher who engage with God’s Word seriously, think clearly and discern wisely, and listen deeply to what Christ is revealing to them in their secret hearts. As an aside, I find alarming Asher’s account of how his then church leaders tried to shut him off from his small group of questioning friends. This is typical of cultish control. Not a good sign. And one that should sound an alarm of caution.
Megachurches do not impress me. More corporate than Christlike, imperatives of mammon compete with imperatives of grace and truth with the former often getting the upper hand. I see little if any transparency in financial details of Prince’s church. Overt sales pitches of Prince’s cornucopia of products during church services and perceived conflict of interests seem happily swept aside by either nonchalance or something else. A ready market for flogging of goods; church facilities and resources used for recording sermons and production of goods with no apparent clear accounting; no access to transparent accounting of how and where money from tithing congregants is being spent including honoraria for Prince and pastoral staff bonuses and salaries; no information about AGMs or audited accounts seemingly available – these personal observations do not inspire trust. Perhaps such information is privy to only a few or a smaller group of real members, but all these signs paint a less than trustworthy image and raises doubts on matters of integrity. For me, it erodes confidence in how the church is run and where its true priorities lie. Money given voluntarily by congregants to the church does not obviate the need for clear financial accountability and transparency to the congregation. If anything, there is an even greater moral obligation to do so.
(d) Steering clear of extremes
God in His mercy and grace has shown me the grave dangers of both self-righteous legalism and narcissistic antinomianism, so rampant in the church of Christ at this time. Legalism advocates a works-righteousness that bases one’s salvation on one’s performance. This can be blatant or subtle. Blatant legalism presupposes strict conformism to the moral law of God as a means of justification and salvation, relying on one’s self-effort rather than the completed work of Christ. Subtle legalism can manifest in an attitude of harsh criticism, pridefulness, and lack of charity. It creeps in through the backdoor and corrupts one’s spiritual life. For example, subtle legalism can come in the form of various works of faith that if scrupulously performed are thought to grant us blessings and breakthroughs from God. Affectively, there is a posture of moral instrumentality where ‘doing this’ leads to ‘getting that’ from God.
Antinomianism is the idea and spirit that the law of God no longer holds for believers saved in Christ. This means that a Christ-believer has no need to obey God’s moral law (that is the ten commandments) together with the ceremonial and civil laws (categories not directly found in the bible but can be justifiably extrapolated from there). Corollary to this is the argument that a Christ-believer saved by grace through faith has no need for confession whenever they sin. Confession of sin is no longer required of the believer once they have given their lives to Jesus and repented once and for all. Hypergrace proponents advocate confession of righteousness and avoidance of any kind of sin-consciousness. The reason is that sin-consciousness equates to self-condemnation, something that is unnecessary even wrong, given Christ’s atoning death that has redeemed us from condemnation.
In Prince’s hypergrace, there is heavy emphasis on certain actions to be performed that attracts God’s gracious blessings and breakthroughs of health and wealth. The flip side is of course that this does not happen if one does not do them. Conversely, a prosperous healthy believer is a sign of having well-performed these acts while a poor sick believer is a sign of somehow having failed to “possess their possessions” by not having done these acts. What are some of these acts? Bold declarative prayers, exuding faith as “the hand that takes,” partaking the holy communion with a view to receiving healing and provision, confessing one’s righteousness in Christ, avoiding sin-consciousness, listening continually to Prince’s “anointed teachings” are some examples of these acts. The problem is this: taken together, these actions become in effect Prince’s set of ‘hypergrace laws’ the performance of which is imperative for success and breakthroughs. This leads to the harmful desecrating logic that anyone who does not show outward signs of success and breakthrough must not be doing them or not doing them right. This is legalism by any other name.
At the same time, Prince’s hypergrace drums it into devotees’ heads that the moral law together with the ceremonial laws are now obsolete under the new covenant of grace. Hence, there is no need for the moral law at all and hypergrace followers need not worry any more about obeying the ten commandments, not even as a rule of life. Instead, the indwelling Holy Spirit will supernaturally lead them to virtue and ‘princeliness’ without reference to the ten commandments as guideposts. Obviously, this is antinomianism. Why is this so?
First, there is an assumption that the moral law no longer needs to be followed even as a rule of life. But can’t they be followed by the power of the Spirit in us rather than by the self-righteous flesh? If so, why should the moral law be a problem? In fact, scripture tells us that the moral law is written into our hearts as new covenant believers (see Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 10:16) and we can embody and live out the moral law by the power of the Spirit in us. On top of that, the Spirit can empower and direct us into even greater moral excellence than that in the spirit and acts of love.
Second, since the moral law is written into our hearts as new covenant believers, how can this law be obsolete as a rule of life and outworking of our sanctification? Yes, the moral law is obsolete as a means of justification – being right with God – but there is nothing to suggest they are no longer relevant to our sanctification, becoming more and more Christlike. To disregard the moral law is to overlook the remnant of sin in our flesh and underestimating its power over us. In Reformed theology, the third use of the law as rule of life is well attested to and a sound integration of God’s holy law and God’s amazing grace, not as opposing and canceling forces but as a seamless engine and energy for sanctification.
And when as believers we do sin, it is necessary to confess our sins. There is much scriptural attestation to that. Contrary to the pseudo-psychology of hypergrace teachings, sin-consciousness does not inevitably equate to self-condemnation. I’ve written about this before but I say it again: being mindfully aware without reactive self-punishment of our moral and faith shortcomings, flaws, mistakes, transgressions, and sins before the Lord is not only possible but healthy. Honest acknowledgement and self-awareness guards against self-deception and hubris, enabling positive re-orientation of mind-heart-will towards God in the light of Spirit’s conviction (and Spirit convicts us of both sin and righteousness) without sweeping the dust under the carpet. Overestimation of our soul health and false assurance of our salvation can become endemic without such honest recognition before God. If anything, our right standing with God frees us to boldly look at our sins in the eye, acknowledge and confront them, and confess them in repentant faith before our Father and Lord. No self-flagellation needed. Again, we see here a straw-man argument that conflates sin-consciousness with self-condemnation.
Theologically speaking, while our old self of sin has been crucified with Christ, sin remains in our flesh that requires ongoing sanctification of soul and body. The sin principle or sin factory is gone, by the grace of God in Christ on the cross. But sin’s reverberation and remnantal force remains in our fleshly soul and body, requiring a lifelong process of Spirit-empowered sanctification. Confessing our sins before God and confessing our righteousness in Christ are not as diametrically opposed and self-negating as is made out to be by hypergrace teachings. This false dichotomy mirrors the false dichotomy of law versus grace stemming from reified dualistic conceptions of both truths that overlook their nuances. God’s law does not justify us, Christ does. But Christ has put the law in our hearts of flesh to work out our salvation in faith through good works. The outworking of grace in our lives conforms to the law as rule of life and even surpasses its standards by grace of God in Christ. Thus we see the law fulfilled not destroyed or discarded in our walk with Christ. The love of Christ in us compels us to live out Christ’s new commandment: to love God and to love our neighbours as ourselves, however imperfectly. And this process of increasing love in thought, word, deed is part of our sanctification. The law is not obliterated in love; the law is fulfilled and exceeded in love – law and grace embraced in dynamic union.
By dismissing and negating the role of the moral law in sanctification and by advocating his own set of hypergrace acts to secure God’s breakthrough blessings, Joseph Prince’s brand of erroneous teachings not only exhibits antinomianism but also legalism, for they are but flip sides to each other. Hypergrace exhibits both extremes and is not good news.
For some years now, I’ve had grave theological and spiritual concerns about Joseph Prince’s teachings. Now, thanks to Asher Chee’s exposition, I’m flabbergasted at the linguistic and exegetical errors, even deceptions, of Prince’s abuse of Hebrew. Watch an example of Asher’s expositions here.
I pray that Christian leaders of Singapore will rise up and make their voices heard on this grave danger to the church of Jesus Christ. We need to clean up our own backyard, as Rev. George Ong says.
While I’ve had my reservations about Joseph Prince for some years now, I believe it’s time to take an unequivocal stand theologically and spiritually on this issue. Echoing my dear brother in Christ from Australia, it is becoming clearer to me than ever before: Joseph Prince’s “Jesus” is not my Jesus. And in the words of the pioneering Reformation giant Martin Luther: “Here I stand, I can do no other!”
I pray that more and more believers, especially among my friends and family, will awaken from the spell of this delusional false teaching; and engaging in their own due diligence and inquiry, will discard what is false and dark and return to the true and luminous fold of Christ. Hypergrace gospel is no gospel at all. One would do well to reject and leave it. Find a good bible-preaching, gospel-centred, grace-filled (biblical grace, not hypergrace) church instead. For the sake of one’s soul for eternity, if not for the sake of Christ.
Dr Chris Kang
Seeking to Worship at a Biblical Gospel-Centred Church
• Desiring God— https://www.desiringgod.org/
• ETHOS Institute of Public Christianity— https://ethosinstitute.sg/
• Rev. George Ong— https://www.revgeorgeong.com/
• The Gospel Coalition— https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/
Rev George Ong’s Closing Remarks:
Joseph Prince has constantly been using the argument that since he has many testimonies of souls saved under his belt, his teaching and doctrine must certainly be true.
Do the testimonies that he produces, notwithstanding that a portion of them may be true, vindicate his teachings? Certainly not! It’s purely because of the true grace of God – not the false grace teaching of Joseph Prince.
God can use anything to convert a person. He can even make the donkey talk to fulfil His purposes (Num 22:28). By the true grace of God, one can even be converted by a cult group.
I have heard from two of my friends in two separate incidents that they were converted through a cult group. Are their conversions genuine? They say they are.
It is not impossible that this can be so as the Holy Spirit can use just a few words, say, ‘grace and mercy of God’ that is said by the cult preacher to convict a person, and at the same time, blind the listener to the rest of the words that this cult preacher has said that are false.
But thank God that when these two friends of mine realise the groups they belong to were cults, they immediately came out of them.
As I’ve written in my website and said in my videos, I don’t deny there are genuine converts in New Creation Church (though there are many false converts too). The trouble is these genuine converts in New Creation Church continue to stay in the church. And soon, these sheep would be corrupted by the Pseudo-grace doctrine of Joseph Prince to become goats to their damnation.
Dr Chris Kang is a good example of one whose conversion was triggered by Joseph Prince’s ministry but only to realise later that Prince’s hypergrace gospel is false and leaving New Creation Church subsequently. He did the right thing. I do hope and pray that many will follow suit.