Joseph Prince: Shepherd or Wolf?

Volume 2: Joseph Prince’s Teachings Are Against Core Bible Doctrines

Volume 2

Joseph Prince’s Teachings Are Against Core Bible Doctrines 

Volume Summary 

The grace teachings of Joseph Prince contradict many core Bible doctrines on sin, repentance, salvation, discipleship, Holy Spirit, God’s love and God’s wrath, etc. 

One key example is his teaching that the confession of sins in 1 John 1:9 is not written for and applicable to believers, but unbelievers. 

Second, he teaches that the Holy Spirit never comes to convict believers of sin but their righteousness. 

Third, he pushes the view that repentance only involves a change of your mind. 

Fourth, he postures the theology that the New Covenant is about God’s love for us and not our love for God. 

These are serious doctrinal breaches which clearly contradict the scriptures. 

Anyone who teaches against these core doctrines of the Bible is undoubtedly a false teacher. 

Copyright © February 2020 by George Ong

Free Ebook

Not for Sale

 

Contents

 

Chapter 1: *Are Present & Future Sins Forgiven Without Confession? 

Chapter 2: *When We Sin, Are We To Confess Our Sins, Or Are We Are To Confess We Are Righteous?

(Don’t Miss This Chapter – A Free Trip Award to anywhere in the World is offered to Joseph Prince or anyone who meets the condition.)  

Chapter 3: *Is The Confession Of Sin In 1 John 1:9 For Unbelievers (Part 1)?

(Another Free-Trip Award – of a free Round-the-World Trip in 50 Days to Joseph Prince or anyone with just one condition.)  

Chapter 4: Is The Confession Of Sin In 1 John 1:9 For Unbelievers (Part 2)? 

Chapter 5: Does The Holy Spirit Not Convict Believers Of Sin? 

Chapter 6: *Is Repentance Only A Change Of Mind? 

Chapter 7: Has The Rightful Place Of True Guilt Disappeared? 

Chapter 8: *What Has Happened To Discipleship (Luke 14:25-35, Part 1)? 

Chapter 9: *What Has Happened To Discipleship (Matthew 13:44-46, Part 2)? 

Chapter 10: *Is the New Covenant About God’s Love For Us & Not About Our Love For God? 

Chapter 11: *Is God’s Love Unconditional? 

Chapter 12: Is God’s Wrath Necessary For Gospel Preaching? 

Chapter 13: Is Salvation As Simple As Saying The Sinner’s Prayer?  

* Denotes Priority Reading 

Chapter 1 

*Are Present & Future Sins Forgiven Without Confession? 

A. Hebrews 10:17 Must Be Interpreted With Hebrews 10:26-31. 

Heb 10:16-18

16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”

17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”

18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.” 

Joseph Prince falsely teaches that Hebrews 10:17 supports the doctrine that our sins; past, including our present and future have all been cleansed and forgiven. 

This is false teaching when in the same passage about only 10 verses down in Hebrews 10:26-27…. 

Heb 10:26-27

26 “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,

27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.”  

Therefore, when one interprets Hebrews 10:16-18 with Hebrews 10:26-27, it clearly indicates that while our past sins have been forgiven (Heb 10:17), our present and future sins that have not yet been committed have not yet been forgiven (Heb 10:26-27). 

Our present and future sins can be forgiven only if we confess and repent from such sins. 

This is the typical half-truth strategy of Joseph Prince. 

He shows you the half-truth in Hebrews 10:17 but keeps the other half-truth in Hebrews 10:26-27 from you.     

Deliberate and wilful present and future sins that are unrepented of by believers will be judged as unbelievers by God. 

Heb 10:28-29 NIV

28 “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 

The author of Hebrews is writing to believers here:

those who have already been forgiven,

those whose sins God no longer remembers (Heb 10:17),

those who have already received the knowledge of the truth (Heb 10:26),

and have already been sanctified by the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:29).

Our past sins have been forgiven (Heb 10:17), but if we turn our back on the Lord or go back to our ungodly living, and choose our sin rather than the Saviour, “no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God” (Heb 10:26-27 NIV).  

Heb 10:28-31 NIV

28 “Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 

If those who rejected the Old Covenant under the Law of Moses were punished with physical death in V28, how much more severely will those who reject the New Covenant in Jesus in V29 be punished? 

If we reject the Law, the Tabernacle and the Old Testament sacrifices that is passing away, and all these are but mere shadows – and if we reject merely the shadows of the real thing, we are judged with physical death. 

How much more will we be punished if we reject the reality, the substance of the New Covenant that has come in Jesus Christ – how much more severe? 

What could be more severe than physical death?  

It has got to be spiritual death. 

It is a very severe punishment because V31 says,

“It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” 

It is bad enough to fall into the hands of the devil. 

But it is many times worse if we fall into the hands of the living God.

B. Hebrews 10:2 Must Be Interpreted With Hebrews 12:1-4. 

Heb 10:2 NKJV

2 “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins.” 

Hebrews 10:2, often cited by Joseph Prince, that since believers have been cleansed of their sins, we should henceforth no longer be conscious of our sins. 

If that were so, Hebrews 12:1-4, becomes utterly meaningless if we are supposed to have no consciousness of our sins. 

Heb 12:1-4 NIV

1 “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us,

2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” 

While Hebrews 10:2 teaches that our past sins have been forgiven, Hebrews 12:1,4, clearly state that there are present and future sins that are not forgiven and must be repented of if they are committed. 

The half-truth deception of Joseph Prince in action again – showing the half-truth of Hebrews 10:2, while hiding the other half-truth of Hebrews 12:1,4 from you.   

In summary, the author of Hebrews teaches that while past sins are forgiven (Heb 10:2,17), present and future sins are not forgiven unless they are repented of (Heb 10:26-31; 12:1-4). 

Joseph Prince teaches otherwise. 

He teaches every single sin – past, present and future are all forgiven, without the need for confession. 

Who’s telling the truth – the author of Hebrews or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

C. James Teaches That Present & Future Sins Are Not Forgiven. 

Jas 4:4,8,9 NIV

4 “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom.” 

Why would James exhort them to purify themselves if all their sins, including present and future sins, have been forgiven? 

Why would James ask them to grieve, mourn and wail over their sins if future sins are already forgiven? 

James taught that believers are to purify themselves from their present and future sins and to grieve, mourn and wail over them, clearly to indicate these sins have not been forgiven. 

Joseph Prince teaches that all our present and future sins are forgiven. 

Who’s telling the truth – James or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

Jas 5:14-15 NIV

14 “Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.

15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven.” 

James says that the church is to call for the elders to pray over the sick person. 

It’s implied that these present sins are related to this Christian’s sickness. 

If, in fact, the man’s sickness was related to sin in his life, which is sometimes the case, when the elders pray for him, God will heal him and forgive him, as the text says, “they will be forgiven.” 

If his future sins were already forgiven, this verse would have no meaning at all. 

And it would be totally out of place if, as believers, we were never to have any consciousness of sin (as Joseph Prince teaches). 

The word of God in James 5:14-15 says that at that time when God heals him, He will forgive him, which obviously means the sick man’s sins still needed to be forgiven. 

In order to obtain forgiveness after our conversion, we must abide in holiness and continual repentance in order to remain forgiven. 

If this person’s sins were already forgiven, then why does God need to forgive his present sins? 

James taught that present and future sins that are due to sickness ought to be prayed for so that they can be forgiven. 

Joseph Prince teaches that present and future sins have all been forgiven. 

Who’s telling the truth – James or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

Jas 5:16 NIV

15 “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” 

James, recognising the damaging effects of sin and the connection that sometimes exists between sin and sickness, encouraged them to confess their sins to each other and pray for one another for healing. 

If we should no longer be conscious of sins, as propounded by Joseph Prince, why in the world would we confess our sins to each other? 

James 5:16 would also be meaningless if the Pseudo-grace message were true. 

How in the world could we confess our sins if we are not supposed to be conscious of them? 

To get out of the mire, Joseph Prince further teaches that while it is alright to confess our sins to one another, confessing the same sins to get forgiven by God is out of the question as every single sin has been forgiven. 

But how utterly ridiculous to think that it’s fine for us to confess our sins to each other but not to God. 

James teaches that present and future sins against each other need to be confessed, clearly implying that we need to be conscious of such sins. 

Joseph Prince teaches that since they have all been forgiven, we must not be conscious of them. 

Who’s telling the truth – James or Joseph Prince? 

You decide!

D. The Apostle Peter Never Teaches That Present & Future Sins Are Forgiven Without Confession/Repentance.   

If God has forgiven all our present and future sins as Joseph Prince teaches, then why did Apostle Peter address the awful nature of present sins and warn about the dangers of walking in those sins in Acts 8:18-24? 

Acts 8:18-24 NIV

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money

19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money!

21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God.

22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.” 

Simon, a baptised believer, was told by Apostle Peter to pray for God to forgive him because he knew that he had committed the dreadful sin of trying to buy God’s power with money. 

It is starkly clear and plain that Peter didn’t believe what Joseph Prince teaches – that for believers, since all present and future sins have already been forgiven, confession/repentance is obsolete. 

If Peter did, he would not have commanded Simon to repent (Acts 8:22). 

Peter was absolutely clear that repentance was required for Simon to be forgiven of his present sin (Acts 8:22-23).  

But if Simon did not repent of his sins, Peter said that he would perish (Acts 8:20-23). 

Joseph Prince’s teaching that you don’t have to confess/repent of your sins directly contradicts what Peter told Simon – that if he doesn’t, he will perish. 

In other words, if we listen to Joseph Prince and refuse to confess/repent of our sins, we too will perish and go to hell. 

Can you now see that Joseph Prince’s teaching that one should not confess and repent of his sins can lead one to the pit of hell? 

If someone’s teaching can lead another to hell, how can he not be a false prophet? 

The Apostle Peter has taught that we, like Simon, must confess/repent of our present sins, and if we don’t, we will perish. 

Joseph Prince teaches that all our present and future sins are forgiven, and hence there is no more need for confession/repentance after the point of conversion. 

Who’s telling the truth – Apostle Peter or Joseph Prince?   

You decide!

E. The Apostle Paul Teaches That Present Sins Which Are Not Repented Of Are Not Forgiven & Have To Be Dealt With. 

1 Cor 5:1-5 NIV

1 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.

2 And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this?

3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.

4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,

5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” 

Paul teaches that there are present sins that the church has the responsibility to deal with, and to judge and correct, and if we don’t, they can have eternal consequences. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that since all our present sins are already forgiven, we are not to be conscious of our sins, and we do not have to confess our sins but to confess our righteousness. 

Who’s telling the truth – Apostle Paul or Joseph Prince? 

You decide!

F. The Apostle Paul Teaches That Present Sins Which Are Not Dealt With Can Have Serious Consequences. 

1 Cor 11:27-32 NIV

27 “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.

32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.” 

Paul teaches that if the present sins of the Corinthians and us believers are not dealt with; they can have serious consequences. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that all our sins have been forgiven at the cross and there is no more need for any action to deal with our present sins or any confession of sins for believers. 

Who’s telling the truth – Apostle Paul or Joseph Prince? 

You decide!

G. The Apostle Paul Teaches That Present Sins Of The Corinthians That He Grieved Over Must Be Repented Of. 

2 Cor 12:21 NIV

21 “I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.” 

Paul teaches that present sins of the Corinthians, who are believers in the New Covenant that he grieved over, must be repented of. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that confession of sins and repentance is only done once at conversion, and a Christian does not need to confess or repent as their sins have all been forgiven – and if you confess your sins, you are insulting God. 

Who’s telling the truth – Apostle Paul or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

H. The Apostle Paul Teaches That We Are To Examine Ourselves So That Present Sins Can Be Dealt With To Avoid Judgement. 

1 Cor 11:28-29 NIV

28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.

29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 

Paul teaches that we are to examine ourselves for any sins in our lives, lest we may be judged. 

Joseph Prince teaches that we should stop examining ourselves and searching our hearts for sin as every single sin has been forgiven at the cross. 

Who’s telling the truth – Apostle Paul or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

I. Paul & James Teach That A Believer Who Lives & Sins In The Flesh Will Die A Spiritual Death. 

Rom 8:13 NIV

14 “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” 

Jas 1:14-16 NIV

14 “but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.

15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

16 Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters.” 

Paul and James teach that a righteous believer who revert to living in the flesh and goes on sinning will eventually die a spiritual death and can be lost eternally. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that once we are righteous, we will always be righteous, and we will never lose our salvation as every sin has been forgiven at the cross. 

Who’s telling the truth – Paul and James or Joseph Prince? 

You decide! 

J. Jesus Teaches That Present Sins Can Remain Unforgiven. 

Matt 6:14-15 NIV

14 “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” 

Jesus clearly teaches that if we do not forgive others, our present sins are still not forgiven. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that all our past, present and future sins have been completely forgiven by the finished work of Christ, 2,000 years ago. 

Who’s telling the truth – Jesus Christ or Joseph Prince? 

You decide!

K. Jesus Teaches That Present Sins Must Be Repented Of To Avoid Divine Repercussions. 

Rev 2:5 NIV

“Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place.” 

Rev 2:16 NIV

16 “Repent therefore! Otherwise, I will soon come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.” 

Rev 2:22 NIV

22 “So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways.” 

Rev 3:3 NIV

“Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; hold it fast, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.” 

Rev 3:16,19 NIV

16 “So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

19 “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.” 

Jesus exposed the sins of the believers in five of seven churches in Revelation 2-3 and warned them to repent to avoid divine repercussions. 

But Joseph Prince teaches that believers are not to confess their sins, instead, they should confess they are righteous. 

Who’s telling the truth – Jesus Christ or Joseph Prince? 

You decide!

L. The ‘All Future Sins Are Forgiven Without Confession’ Teaching Does Not Meet The Test Of Scriptures & Even Logic. 

The teaching that all our past, present and future sins have been completely forgiven at the cross may logically lead to Universalism. 

Since Christ has paid for all sins and forgiven all at the cross, all mankind will be saved, whether they want or know it or not. 

Joseph Prince teaches that we must not be sin-conscious as the more you confess your sins, the more you will feel condemned, so you must confess your righteousness. 

That to me is another unspoken way of saying, “I want to sin and not have to feel guilty about it.” 

To tell a Christian that all his future sins are forgiven unconditionally without the need for repentance, is like telling a child that he doesn’t have to say sorry for all his future wrongdoings in his teens – through his adult years – and to the end of his life. 

This which would drive every parent up the wall and even crazy! 

Teaching that our future sins are forgiven is like telling a criminal who has just been released from prison that the crimes that he plans to commit in the future will not be held against him. 

The government that pardons all future crimes of every criminal is mentally sick – so is Joseph Prince, who crazily teaches that all our future sins have been completely forgiven. 

If no one can accept that the future crimes of a criminal can be given an unconditional and prior pardon, isn’t it crazy to believe that our future sins can have this bizarre privilege? 

If our future sins are already and completely forgiven because of the finished work of Christ, why the need to confess them even at the point of our salvation in the first place? 

What if a Pseudo-grace believer were to commit the sin of murder as King David did? 

Should he then be confessing his righteousness in Christ as if nothing has happened, instead of his sin of murder? 

Unimaginable! 

If Joseph Prince objects with the fact that such major sins of adultery and murder are not included, then he should dare state this upfront in his doctrine:

“We must not confess sins but our righteousness since our sins have already been forgiven – however, sins of adultery and murder do not apply.” 

If Joseph Prince includes an exemption for adultery and murder, his theology that all future sins are already forgiven breaks down. 

It should then be more accurately framed as: “Most future sins are forgiven but not all future sins are forgiven.” 

The inevitable outcome of Joseph Prince’s teaching that our future sins are forgiven without the need for confession or repentance only provides ‘believers’ with a blank cheque for future sinning. 

Joseph Prince’s teaching that you must confess you are righteous and not your sins, even though you are sinning will send those who practise such twisted and perverse teachings to the pit of hell.

M. The ‘Every Future Sin Is Forgiven Without Confession’ Teaching Will Lead To Abuse & Licentiousness. 

What do you expect from the distorted grace doctrine of Joseph Prince that teaches that our all our future sins are forgiven without even the need of confession and repentance, and that our salvation is eternally guaranteed because we are once saved, always saved, no matter what we do or don’t do. 

It doesn’t take a theologian to tell you that kind of distorted grace teachings would lead, especially the new believers, the immature, the naïve and the carnal, to licentiousness. 

People will think, “What’s the worry even if I commit a great sin as all my future sins are forgiven anyway, and I am forever and eternally saved.” 

So, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Joseph Prince’s perverted grace teachings are giving the people the licence to sin and would lead (and have led) to licentiousness. 

Joseph Prince’s Pseudo-grace teaching has indeed “turn the grace of our God into licentiousness (Jude 4).   

It doesn’t help a tiny bit for Joseph Prince to defend himself that he is against sin. 

He can shout all he wants that he is against sin and that he is not teaching the people to sin – the fact remains his (Pseudo) grace teachings would lead and have led to that horrible licentious end. 

Come on, Joseph Prince, stop pretending that you aren’t aware that your (Pseudo) grace teachings would lead and have led to such licentious end, even though you may not teach this overtly. 

Joseph Prince is too clever to say upfront that you can continue to sin habitually after you have become a Christian as that will blow his cover. 

But he craftily says that

all your future sins are forgiven;

there is no confession of sins required after conversion;

when you sin, don’t confess your sins but confess you are righteous;

and that since you are once righteous always righteous,

there is nothing you can do to forfeit your salvation because you are forever saved. 

Joseph Prince, you are so deceptive that your teachings are actually giving the people the license to sin, while at the same time, you can craftily claim that you aren’t overtly teaching it.  

It is no exaggeration to say that Joseph Prince’s perverted grace teachings would naturally lead, especially the new believers, the immature, the naive and the carnal to take their sinning lightly. 

Even mature believers would be tempted to take the licentious route. 

And when they do fall into habitual sins, such as adultery or gambling, they would quote what Joseph Prince has assured them – that there is nothing to worry about as all their future sins have been forgiven anyway; they are saved by the unconditional grace of God, and they can never lose their salvation.

Joseph Prince, your typical comeback defence would always be (to protect yourself) – that person who is living in adultery or gone into heavy gambling is not a Christian in the first place because if he is saved by grace, sin shall have no dominion over him (Rom 6:14).  

Joseph Prince, if he isn’t a Christian in the first place, then why did you pronounce him a believer after he had said sinner’s prayer?  

Why did you assure him that he is once saved always saved and that he can never lose his salvation, no matter what?  

You gladly tell the person he is once saved forever saved after he had said the sinner’s prayer.  

Then when something happens – he sins habitually as an adulterer or a gambler – you turn around and say, “Oh, he is not saved or a believer in the first place.”  

If you want the ‘kiasu’ option of later on declaring a person as not saved or an unbeliever because his habitual sinning as an adulterer or a gambler is discovered, then you have, absolutely, no right, to proclaim that same person to be once saved always saved and that he can never lose his salvation after he had said the sinners’ prayer.  

You are clearly a double-talker.  

One moment, you declare the person is once saved always saved.  

And the next moment, upon the discovery that he is into adultery and gambling, you now declare him to be an unbeliever. 

Your grace doctrine is so self-contradictory and all messed up!  

What is worse is you are giving a false impression and false hope that one is once saved always saved when he isn’t.  

Why didn’t you follow the clear teaching of the Apostle Paul by instructing believers to examine their lives to see if they are still in the faith (2 Cor 13:5), instead of telling everybody they are once saved always saved?  

In fact, you teach against this very teaching of Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:5. 

Chapter 2 

*When We Sin, Are We To Confess Our Sins, Or Are We Are To Confess We Are Righteous?  

Don’t Miss This Chapter – A Free-Trip Award To Anywhere In The World Is Offered To Those Who Meet A Condition.

I Am Serious! 

A. Free-Trip Award To Joseph Prince & Everyone. 

Joseph Prince teaches that when we sin, we are not to confess our sins because every sin has been forgiven at the cross, but we are to confess we are righteous. 

Joseph Prince teaches that one should confess his righteousness when he is sinning instead of his sins is not only false but spiritually destructive. 

There is nowhere in the Bible that tells a believer to confess his righteousness when he is sinning instead of his sins except for the weird and false doctrine that Joseph Prince teaches.  

Joseph Prince, show me just one verse in the Bible that explicitly says that we are to confess our righteousness and not our sins when we are sinning. 

If there is one, I will offer to sponsor you to a free trip anywhere in the world. 

This same free-trip award is offered to anyone who can find me a verse that explicitly says that we are to confess our righteousness instead of our sins when we are sinning. 

If just 10 of you could find just one verse and all 10 opt to go to Antarctica, the next day, the headlines in the newspapers will be titled,

“A silly preacher, George Ong, went bankrupt for offering a foolish deal.” 

But this is nothing as compared to what may happen on the Day of Judgement – this headline in the Heavenly Straits Times, a newspaper for the angels may appear,

“Millions went to hell all because they have been so foolish to listen to Joseph Prince about a weird doctrine without even checking the scriptures to test whether what he taught was true.” 

Joseph Prince, if there isn’t a single verse that explicitly says that we are to confess our righteousness instead of our sins when we are sinning, it is pure recklessness on your part to teach this doctrine as if it is gospel truth and deceive millions of people to hell. 

The blood of these souls will be on your hands. 

If you dare to take such reckless risk by playing Russian roulette over such weird teachings over your eternity, don’t ever assume that everyone is as reckless as you would.  

Joseph Prince – Let’s Up the Stakes to Three Times Higher! 

If Joseph Prince can show me what he taught

– that when we sin, we should confess our righteousness and not our sins

– and that this is explicitly taught by Jesus OR Paul OR JUST any of the writers of scriptures,

I will offer him, not just one, but three free trips to anywhere in the world.   

These three free trips to anywhere in the world are also extended to anyone, especially those who have been influenced by Joseph Prince’s teachings with the same condition. 

Joseph Prince, if you can’t even show me what you have aggressively taught as your core doctrine

is also taught by Jesus OR Paul OR even JUST one of the scripture writers,

you have no right to blame me for calling you a wolf in sheepskin.   

Now readers – why am I doing this? 

For the fun of it? 

No, my friends! 

I am dead serious about honouring the deal at the prospect of going bankrupt, and more crucially, to expose Joseph Prince as a wolf to the body of Christ. 

And I have so far paid a very high price for it in terms of my itinerant ministry and I am continuing to pay the price. 

But – no sweat! – It’s a joy!

It’s worth every ounce of the price that I have paid so far for the sake of obeying my Lord to protect the integrity of His word and the gospel – so that people will not be deceived and end themselves up in the lake of fire. 

What is the giving up of my one life in exchange for souls that I can pluck from hell? 

Nothing! Pittance! 

“Fighting a battle that has eternal ramifications is worth pouring all my heart and soul into.” (George Ong)

B. James Teaches Believers To Confess Their Sins, Not Righteousness. 

Jas 5:16 NIV

16 “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” 

James recognised the detrimental effects of sin and the connection that sometimes exists between sin and sickness. 

That is why he encouraged believers to confess their sins to each other and pray for each other for healing. 

James’ teaching on the confession of sins negates Joseph Prince’s teachings that we should no longer be conscious of sin. 

If we should no longer be conscious of sins, why in the world would, James instruct us to confess our sins to each other? 

If Joseph Prince’s teaching that we should not be conscious of sins were true, then James 5:16 would be meaningless and redundant. 

James, by his teaching that we should confess our sins, will definitely make us conscious of sins. 

It is now clear that it is either James or Joseph Prince is telling the truth.  

How can James, who wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit, not be telling the truth? 

That leaves without a doubt that the person who is not telling the truth is Joseph Prince. 

How many more times do you need me to prove to you that Joseph Prince is not telling the truth before you can make up your mind that he is a false teacher?   

Joseph Prince, you have made things worse by teaching in your video that there is nothing wrong with confessing our sins to each other. 

You have to say that because you are being cornered by James 5:16. 

But please tell me – how in the world could we confess our sins if we are not supposed to be conscious of them – a doctrine which Joseph Prince also teaches? 

If we are not to be conscious of our sins as you teach, then we should never be confessing our sins to one another. 

Don’t you know how silly and illogical your teaching is? 

This is yet another case of your double-talk. 

If we can’t even trust an ‘ordinary person’ who engages in double-talk, how can we ever trust Joseph Prince (a supposedly world-renowned teacher of God’s word) who has a clear track record of the same flaw?  

Joseph Prince, you have also said that believers should not confess their sins to be forgiven but confess their righteousness. 

If your doctrine is right, it would be an excellent occasion and opportunity for James to advise those he was writing to, to practise it. 

But James did the reverse of what you taught. 

Instead of asking believers to confess their righteousness, he instructed believers to confess their sins.   

Joseph Prince, you owe us an explanation of why James is contradicting your doctrine. 

If all sins are forgiven, why is James telling us that we are to confess them to each other? 

The fact that believers need to confess their sins to each other simply means that they have sinned against each other. 

Since sinning against a fellow brother or sister is also sinning against God, this plainly shows our present and future sins against God are not forgiven unless they are confessed.  

Furthermore, to save his doctrine from being debunked, Joseph Prince had to propound the illogical idea that it is alright to confess our sins to one another but wrong to confess our sins to God to be forgiven.

It is utterly ridiculous and nonsensical of him to think that while it’s alright for us to confess our sins to each other, it is wrong to confess them to God to be forgiven. 

If I will confess to a friend if I have offended him, it is only natural that I must do the same thing to God if I have sinned against Him.

Whether it is to a friend or God, it is natural to confess our sins to the offended person. 

Take, for example, that if I sin against a friend named Jim by falsely accusing him about an issue, naturally, he expects an apology. 

If I don’t apologise, he will probably get mad at me, and he has every reason to do so. 

The usual thing for me to do is to confess to Jim. 

If I confess to Jim and ask for forgiveness, I’m sure he will forgive me. 

It is the same with God. 

This is plain common sense. 

If it is common sense to do it with people, how much more is it with God, who takes sins seriously because He is a Holy God. 

Yet, Joseph Prince is prepared to sacrifice even his common sense in order to protect his grace doctrine, which is full of loopholes.  

Let’s say Pastor A, who is against the teachings of Joseph Prince – and they had a conversation…. 

Joseph Prince: Since all sins had already been forgiven, including present and future sins, there is no need ever to confess our sins to God. 

Pastor A: But Joseph, what if you got angry with your wife and you gave her a terrible scolding, after which you left the house for a while.

When you returned home, would you just act as if nothing had happened between you and your wife, or would you feel the need to apologise?

Would you say, “Darling, please forgive me for the harsh way I have spoken to you? There’s no excuse on my part. I sincerely apologise and ask for your forgiveness.” 

Joseph Prince: Of course, I would ask my wife to forgive me. 

Pastor A: But shouldn’t you do the same thing to God and apologise by confessing to Him if you had sinned against Him?

Besides, a sin against your wife was also a sin against the Lord. 

Joseph Prince: I disagree because this is the Lord that we were talking about, not my wife. 

Pastor A: What kind of relationship with the Lord do you have, Joseph. You mean to tell me that your sins against Him and against others don’t grieve you and move you to go to Him in repentance?

Don’t you think that your relationship with God is one that can be even deeper than the relationship you enjoy with your wife?

If you felt the need to get things right with your wife – not out of rote but out of a relationship – why wouldn’t you feel the need to get things right with God on a relational level?

And wasn’t there a reason that God compared His relationship to Israel with that of a husband to a wife, while in the New Testament the church is portrayed as the bride of Christ (Jer 3:1, Eph 5:22-32)?

C. Confessing Righteousness, Not Sin, Isn’t Taught By Apostolic Fathers & Church Fathers. 

Joseph Prince, you have made big claims that your ‘confessing your righteousness instead of confessing your sins’ teaching has set many people free from their bondage. 

Come to think of it, if you have discovered such an effective strategy to set people free, why is the early church not practising it? 

Instead, they were practising the reverse of what you taught – confessing sins instead of confessing righteousness. 

If your teaching has really worked, how I wish the Apostle Paul, Apostle Peter, Apostle John and all the other big guns in the early church should have been alive today so that they can sit at the feet of this Grace Guru, Joseph Prince and learn from him about his Super-Grace doctrine that they have not even heard about from Jesus.  

If your ‘confess your righteousness and not confess your sins’ approach is so super-good, why is that not taught or practiced by our other ‘more contemporary’ church Fathers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, A W Tozer, Leonard Ravenhill, Martyn Lloyd Jones, Derek Prince, John Stott, David Wilkerson, J I Packer, David Pawson and John MacArthur, etc? 

Joseph Prince – I know the doctrines of these men of God enough to tell you that they ALL taught against your grace doctrine!

So it is either you are the Super-Saint that God has decided to reveal what He has not revealed to our Apostolic and ‘more contemporary’ church fathers or you are a fraud!

D. Joseph Prince’s Confessing Righteousness Instead Of Sin Would Lead To Horrendous Ends.   

Joseph Prince, you have always been teaching that we must not bring up the subject of sin any more as they have all been dealt with at the cross. 

You also teach that to keep bringing up the subject of sin is being negative, and we must never talk about sin any more as that is promoting condemnation and sin-consciousness instead of righteousness-consciousness. 

And you further teach that what needs to be done is not to bring up the issue of sin anymore but to assure believers about their righteousness in Christ. 

What is horrendous is, Joseph Prince is teaching that whenever believers commit any sin,

whether it is a sin of anger, lying, cheating, robbing, adultery, molest, rape, murder, etc, 

they are not supposed to confess any of such sins

as all these sins have been forgiven at the cross

– instead, they are to keep repeating, “I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.” 

In ‘Destined To Reign’, Pages 17-18, Joseph Prince wrote,

Declare it out loud! Come on, say it with me three times, each time louder than the first:

“I am the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ!”

“I am the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ!”

“I am the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ!”  

In ‘The Power of Right Believing’, Page 211, Joseph Prince wrote,

“For a season in my life, before I even got out of bed, I would repeat to myself over and over again, “I am the righteousness of God in Christ.”

Some mornings I would say it more than fifty times.” 

In ‘Grace Revolution’, Pages 290-291, Joseph Prince wrote,

“And when you have sinned, what do you say?

That’s the time to say by faith, ‘I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus’” (see 2 Cor 5:21). 

Let me repeat what Joseph Prince wrote,

“And when you have sinned…say by faith, ‘I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.’” 

Just imagine this horrifying scene – a Christian who has embraced Joseph Prince’s teachings, and who had just committed the sin of murder looks over the dead body without any remorse knowing that his sin of murder has been forgiven at the cross, and keeps repeating, “I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.” 

Only a clown or a spiritually sick person would believe such outrageous teachings of Joseph Prince! 

Joseph Prince may say,

“But George, when I say every future sin is forgiven at the cross, I don’t mean the sin of adultery, rape, murder and etc.” 

George would say,

“Then, why did you say, ‘Every future sin.’

You ought to have said, ‘Every future sin is forgiven at the cross except the sin of adultery, rape and murder plus 10 other exceptions.’

So, now I understand your doctrine – you are saying that the finished work of Christ is only powerful to forgive small sins such as jealousy, envy, losing your temper, but what Christ has done on the cross is not powerful enough to forgive big sins such as adultery, rape and murder.” 

Joseph Prince may say,

“But surely a true and born-again believer won’t commit the sins of adultery and murder?” 

George would say,

“Who says a believer cannot commit such sins as adultery and murder? 

Have you have forgotten about David?

Even though he was a man after God’s own heart, he committed both sins of adultery and murder.

And Moses, the man whom God gave the law to His covenantal people, was a murderer too.”    

Concluding Remark 

If Joseph Prince’s weird doctrine of confessing righteousness instead of sin can lead to such horrendous ends, only a fool would choose to follow his grace teachings.    

Yet, there are many who have been bought over by his teachings.   

Chapter 3 

*Is The Confession Of Sin In 1 John 1:9 For Unbelievers (Part 1)? 

My Offer of a Free Round-the-World Trip in 50 Days to Joseph Prince with just One Condition (see the article). 

A. The True Interpretation Of 1 John 1:9 About The Confession Of Sins Is For Believers, Not Unbelievers. 

There are two videos to view. 

The first is a 4-minute video, titled, Confession of Sins. 

The second is a 30-second video, titled, Confession of Sins 2, which is placed almost at the end of this article. 

Please view the 4-minute video of Joseph Prince,

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JPkEhpzWg6PnwCyK_Q–2SJ-E79BP6Vz

(Source: YouTube, Joseph Prince Exposed Don’t Confess Your Sins)  

Here is what Joseph Prince said in the video,

“Now, if I in one day, we have this teaching, when I sin, I am unrighteous, and depending on your background and denomination, there are certain things you do to get re-righteous.

And then before the day is over, something happens again and you are now unrighteous.

And then you got to get re-righteous.

Something is wrong with that teaching.”

“Alright, watch this now.

I am walking in the light.

When I have a bad thought or bad word, whatever, bad intention and I caught myself, do I find myself in darkness, and I have to go through some whatever your belief is, your denominational beliefs are, whatever, then I get back into the light.

This is what some Christians believe. No, no.”  

“Does Pastor Prince believe in confessing your sins?

Honestly, this is once and for all.

There are people who misrepresent me out there.

Pastor Prince never said, alright, you cannot confess your sins; it’s wrong to confess your sins.”  

My comments on this video are splattered across this article. 

Joseph Prince teaches the false doctrine that since the sins of believers are forgiven, including future sins, they are not to confess their sins.  

He said there is nowhere in the scriptures that teach that believers must confess their sins to be forgiven. 

He postulated that chapter one of 1 John of which 1 John 1:9 is a part, was written not to believers but the Gnostics (heretics), the unbelievers. 

In ‘Destined To Reign’, Page 106, Joseph Prince wrote,

“People have taken this verse and built a whole doctrine around it when actually, chapter 1 of 1 John was written to the Gnostics, who were unbelievers.

John was saying to these unbelievers that if they confessed their sins, God would be faithful and just to cleanse them from all unrighteousness.” 

1 Jn 1:9 NIV

9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” 

Joseph Prince said that 1 John 1:9 was not written to the Church but to unbelievers (Gnostics) to encourage them to confess their sins to God so they can be saved or Born Again.  

Once they are Born Again, they never need to ask forgiveness for any sins again. 

All sins are already forgiven, even future sins.  

Joseph Prince’s view that chapter 1 of 1 John was written to unbelievers and not believers is a gross error. 

Every book, including 1 John of the New Testament was written to the church. 

The Book of 1 John was written as one single and cohesive letter given to one primary audience – the church. 

It is cohesive and with a common theme, and to separate the first chapter from the rest of the book as having a different audience is dishonest and deceptive. 

It makes no sense for John to write a letter to the Gnostics in the opening portion and then the church later on.  

That would be as ridiculous as a certain pastor, writing a letter to a church that belongs to one of his spiritual sons in the ministry, and including in the opening paragraph an address exclusively for Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

If chapter one of 1 John was not written to Christians and they are to ignore it because it didn’t apply to them, why did John open with it? 

How are Christians who are addressed in 1 John going to know that 1 John chapter 1 was supposed to be for the Gnostics, and not for them if it wasn’t specifically stated? 

If it was necessary to address the local Gnostics, John could have perhaps put it at the end of the book, with an explanation:

“Oh, by the way, will you send this separate note to the Gnostics, and remember, you don’t need to confess your sins because they have all been forgiven!”  

Regardless, the evidence is overwhelming that the book of 1 John fits together beautifully and flows perfectly without having to switch audiences after the introductory comments of the first chapter.  

Some of the heretics, who may have influenced members of the Christian community, were claiming to be without sin.  

Other heretics claim that sin will not affect one’s relationship with God.  

(It was also because the Gnostics believe Jesus only came as a spirit and that they believe the realm of the flesh is evil, that John had to speak about the humanity of Christ in 1 John 1:1 and 4:2-3 and assert the fact Jesus came in the flesh.)

So John had to counter their claim to be sinless, and that sin will not affect one’s relationship with God by urging his readers who may have been influenced by these heretics to confess their sins to obtain forgiveness.  

Although the Apostle John was dealing with Gnosticism in this epistle, the recipients of this letter were not Gnostics but true believers who were being warned against Gnosticism. 

By focusing in on one keyword in 1 John 1:9, Joseph Prince’s theory can be easily debunked.  

That keyword is ‘we’. 

The Apostle John said, “If we confess our sins ….”  

1 Jn 1:9 NIV

9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”  

Since the author, John uses the word, ‘we’, he is including himself as one among those who needs to confess his sins in order to obtain forgiveness. 

Is John a believer or an unbeliever? 

A believer, of course! 

John, as the author, is using the words ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’, as he is representing all believers who need to confess their sins. 

John was not an unbeliever when he wrote his Epistles. 

He was a Born Again, Spirit-filled Christian who had been walking with the Lord for many decades.  

Therefore, it is impossible that John was referring to the unsaved people of the world when he used the pronoun ‘we’.   

How can John lump himself who is saved with the unsaved people by using the word ‘we’? 

When John used the term ‘we,’ he was referring to Christians, such as himself, not unbelievers. 

This is so simple that even a teenager can understand it.     

Another point that debunks Joseph Prince’s theory is that the main troublemakers – the heretics (Gnostics) who had been part of the community in 1 John, had by now moved away from the community (1 Jn 2:18-19). 

1 Jn 2:18-20 NIV

18 “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.

19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.” 

Note the ‘they’, ‘their’ and ‘them’ refer to the heretics or unbelievers, whereas the ‘you’ and ‘us’ refer to believers. 

As for heretics and unbelievers, they are mostly and consistently addressed as outsiders as ‘they’, as they were not part or no longer part of the community. 

In other words, at the time of writing, the non-believers were no longer in the midst of these congregations. 

So it is quite conclusive that John was not addressing heretics or unbelievers in chapter one of this letter, as Joseph Prince has claimed. 

He was addressing believers who may be influenced by these heresies. 

Another example of the ‘they/their/them (unbelievers) vs we/us/you (believers)’ divide. 

1 Jn 4:4-6 NIV

4 “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

5 They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.

6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.” 

Interestingly, Paul, too in many of his letters, did the same thing when he was addressing specific people or referring to a particular group of people within a church body using the ‘we’ for believers and the author himself, and ‘they’ for others or/and the unbelievers.  

Along with the same strain of thought, let’s take a look at the entire passage from 1 John chapter 1, right up to the first four verses of chapter 2, and you will clearly see the logic of this argument. 

In this entire passage, I have highlighted the words, ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’ to indicate that they refer to believers.

Note that in this entire passage, there is not a single ‘They’ or ‘Them’ or ‘Their’, indicating that no unbelievers were being addressed to. 

This is to show you that the entire letter, especially from 1 John chapter 1 to chapter 2 was written to the same audience – believers. 

Hence, there is not a single chance for 1 John 1:9 as Joseph Prince has claimed, to be addressed to unbelievers. 

1 Jn 1:1-10 NIV

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

4 We write this to make our joy complete.

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us. 

1 Jn 2:1-4 NIV

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands.

4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.” 

After perusing the entire passage, I believe you will come to a clear conclusion that Joseph Prince’s argument that chapter 1 was written to unbelievers while chapter two was written to believers is plain hogwash.  

Furthermore, the Greek is even more explicitly against Joseph Prince’s interpretation since the word, ‘confess’ in the Greek in 1 John 1:9 speaks of continuous, present action as opposed to a one-time act. 

1 Jn 1:9 NIV

9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

This means that we (as believers) are to confess our sins on a regular basis. 

It does not refer to a one-time confession of sins (for unbelievers) to receive Christ for salvation. 

In other words, confessing of sins when a Christian sin from time to time is an on-going affair, but confessing our sins for unbelievers to receive Christ as Saviour and Lord is a one-time act. 

The confessing of sins in 1 John 1:9, which is a continuous and present action, is definitely referring to believers and not to unbelievers. 

It is the former that is being referred to in 1 John 1:9, not the latter as claimed by Joseph Prince.  

Most importantly, after writing 1 John 1:8-10, immediately, John says in 1 John 2:1,    

1 Jn 2:1 NKJV

1 “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 

What are ‘these things’? 

‘These things’ are what John wrote in 1 John chapter 1, especially the preceding three verses, namely, 1 John 1:8-10.  

So we can now clearly see that 1 John 1:9 was written to believers because there is an obvious connection between 1 John 2:1 and 1 John chapter 1, especially the last three verses, V8-10. 

1 Jn 1:8-10 NKJV

8 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” 

1 Jn 2:1 NKJV

1 “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 

The ‘these things’ in 1 John 2:1 refer to what goes immediately preceding it, ie, 1 John 1:8-10, and the rest of 1 John chapter 1. 

Since there is an unbroken connection, John was unmistakably speaking to the same audience of believers. 

The common theme (especially from 1 John 1:8-10 to 1 John 2:1) that John was trying to address is the false doctrine that Christians are sinless or that they could consciously live in sin without affecting their fellowship with God.

Hence, 1 John 1:9 states that there must be a confession of sins before forgiveness can be obtained. 

Joseph Prince’s view that chapter 1 was written to unbelievers and chapter 2 to believers does not hold any water. 

Therefore, Joseph Prince’s teachings that 1 John 1:9 was written to unbelievers who were being called to put their trust in Jesus and be saved are debunked. 

Please read on for more reasons why Joseph Prince’s theory is untenable.

B. Countering Joseph Prince’s Teachings. 

1. In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 189, Joseph Prince wrote,

“When you are reading chapter 1 of 1 John, one of the things that you need to be clear about is whom it was written to.

Notice that in the first part of 1 John, there are no greetings to believers.

If you look at Paul’s letters, you will see that it was common during those days for the author to greet believers when writing to them.

For instance, Paul would write “To the saints who are in Ephesus” or “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.”

When you compare 1 John with the greetings found in 2 John and 3 John, you can see that John greets believers directly in the other two letters.

In 2 John, he writes, “…To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth…Grace, mercy, and peace will be with you from God …,” and in 3 John, he writes, “ …To the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth: Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.

In stark contrast, there are no greetings to believers in 1 John 1.

Why is that?

It is because John was not writing to believers in that chapter.

He was addressing the Gnostics who had infiltrated the early church.” 

George’s comments: 

Joseph Prince, going by your argument that greetings were common at the beginning of each letter and there were no greetings at the beginning of the letter in 1 John, the logical conclusion should be that (not that I agree with it) the whole book of 1 John should be written to the Gnostics, and not just chapter 1 alone as you had illogically suggested. 

Are you aware that when all New Testament books were written, each book was written as one whole letter, with no chapter or number divisions? 

The chapter and number divisions were added later by the various people. 

So it is either the letter was addressed to the believers or the Gnostics. 

But you are posturing an argument that is bordering on the absurd that while Chapter 1 of 1 John was written to the Gnostics, the rest of the chapters were to believers. 

You are the first one that I know so far to have put forward such a bizarre view. 

This means you are clearly implying all the Bible scholars, teachers and pastors throughout the centuries of the Christian Church who taught on 1 John are all wrong, and that you are the only one who is right. 

Don’t you think that your egoism has gotten ahead of you?  

By the way, I’ve made a detailed check on all New Testament books, and I’ve discovered one other book also came with no greetings at the beginning of the letter – Hebrews. 

Why didn’t you highlight that? 

Ignorance or on purpose?

If it is ignorance, it means that your study is not thorough enough. 

If it is on purpose, I am not surprised as this is your classic half-truth tactic that you liberally use to deceive. 

You show us the half-truth of 1 John because 1 John 1:9 threatens your theology, and you had to get rid of it. 

But you conveniently hide the other half of the truth from us – Book of Hebrews – as it may sabotage your argument.  

Perhaps, Joseph Prince, you should go and take a look at Hebrews. 

And who knows – you may make another breakthrough discovery and find that chapter 1 of Hebrews, like chapter 1 of 1 John, may also be written to heretics too (while the rest of Hebrews are for believers). 

Joseph Prince, if Christians throughout the centuries can accept that Hebrews is an authentic letter that was written to believers, even though there were no greetings at the beginning of the letter, there is no reason why you cannot accept that the entire book of 1 John (which also includes 1 Jn chapter 1) was written to believers too? 

Coming back to 1 John 1:9 – have you ever ask the question of why of all texts in the Bible, Joseph Prince is picking on 1 John 1:9? 

It is for the simple reason that it threatens his grace theology. 

His grace theology as you know is that all our sins, including future sins are forgiven. 

And if all sins are forgiven, 1 John 1:9, which teaches that we must confess our sins, would stick out like a sore thumb to contradict him. 

Joseph Prince’s constant preoccupation is to make sure that every text in the Bible fits his grace doctrine. 

And if it doesn’t, he will do everything he can to twist it to make sure it fits. 

That is why this guy is so dangerous. 

A true teacher of the scriptures will never do that as he respects and honours the word of God. 

Only a false teacher like Joseph Prince will be reckless enough to perform that kind of unprincipled feat.  

2. In ‘Destined To Reign’, Page 109, Joseph Prince wrote,

“In 1 John 2:1, John addressed the believers as “My little children” (he never addressed the unbelievers whom he was writing to in chapter 1 as “My little children”) and went on to say, “These things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.” 

George’s comments:

Joseph Prince said that the author never addressed the readers in chapter 1 as “my little children”. 

But in chapter 2 (1 Jn 2:1), he addressed his readers as “My Little Children”. 

This, to Joseph Prince, is the proof that chapter 1 was written to the Gnostics as he didn’t address them as “My little children”, and chapter 2 was written to believers as John addressed them as “My little children”. 

This is a silly argument. 

There are so many instances in the other epistles that the other Apostles interjected the words, “My brethren”, “My children”, halfway in their letters. 

Does that mean that the contents before they used those words are meant for unbelievers?  

As an example, let’s look at John 13:31-33. 

Jn 13:33 NIV

33 “My children, I will be with you only a little longer. You will look for me, and just as I told the Jews, so I tell you now: Where I am going, you cannot come.” 

Jn 13:31-32 NIV

31 “When he was gone, Jesus said, “Now the Son of Man is glorified and God is glorified in him.

32 If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” 

Going by Joseph Prince’s arguments, we would have to argue this way – that since “My children” was used in John 13:33, this means that John 13:31-32, which goes before John 13:33, were not written for believers but unbelievers.

Surely not! 

I have listed the following passages in the epistle of 1 John in which the two words, “dear children,” also appear. 

1 Jn 2:12 NIV

12 “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.” 

1 Jn 2:14 NIV

14 “I write to you, dear children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning…” 

1 Jn 2:18 NIV

18 “Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.” 

1 Jn 2:28 NIV

28 “And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.” 

1 Jn 3:7 NIV

7 “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.” 

1 Jn 4:4 NIV

4 “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” 

1 Jn 5:21 NIV

21 “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.”

After perusing the above verses, ask yourself – does this mean that the verses in 1 John chapters 2-5 that appear before those with the two words, “My children”, were not written to believers but unbelievers? 

This is impossible even from Joseph Prince’s point of view because he said while 1 John chapter 1 was written to unbelievers, 1 John chapters 2-5 were all written to believers. 

Joseph Prince is foolishly using an argument that contradicts his entire position of 1 John without him even knowing it. 

How did he become a world-renowned preacher; I really wonder? 

If a position that one holds self-contradicts, we can be fully assured that it is definitely wrong. 

So I hope you can see that Joseph Prince’s arguments to support his case are downright simplistic and totally untenable. 

3. In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page, 190, Joseph Prince wrote,

“This passage was clearly written to the unbelieving Gnostics to encourage them to stop their denial of sin, acknowledge the truth that sin exists and acknowledge that they have sinned.

It was written to bring them to the realization that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

“Essentially, John was preaching the gospel to the Gnostics and telling them that if they confessed their sins, God would be faithful and just to forgive them their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness.”  

George’s comment: 

Joseph Prince said,

“This passage was clearly written to the unbelieving Gnostics…” 

He is telling a lie. 

If it is so clear, why did the historic and contemporary church, of every denomination and different theological persuasions (charismatics or non-charismatics) believes and is still believing that the whole book of 1 John (not just 1 Jn chapters 2-5) was written to believers? 

One must remember this is a long-held belief of both the historic and contemporary church. 

And if Joseph Prince wants to knock it down, he had better be able to produce clear and concrete proofs of his position. 

The least Joseph Prince must do to knock down a well-established doctrine that has been held for over the last 2,000 years, is to produce a scholarly work about the issue. 

He must show clearly, citing the works of other credible scholars (if he can find any), why the Gnostics are still around in the Christian community when the book of 1 John was written. 

He must also show from textual evidence, 1 John chapter 1 was written to the Gnostics, and not based on some flimsy arguments that could be so easily knocked down.   

In fact, his arguments are so amateurish that one cannot imagine that it could have come from a speaker that is admired by many.  

Joseph Prince wrote,

“Essentially, John was preaching the gospel to the Gnostics and telling them that if they confessed their sins, God would be faithful and just to forgive them their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness.” 

This is the first time I have ever heard (from Joseph Prince) that one can come to know Christ just by confessing sins. 

Whenever the gospel is being preached, it is about believing in Jesus and receiving Him as Lord. 

The name of the Lord Jesus cannot be missed out in any gospel preaching, or one will be left wondering what is the person confessing his sins for? 

So far, I have not found anywhere in the Bible where unbelievers are commanded to confess their sins to God to receive forgiveness for salvation. 

The sins of an unbeliever are not forgiven through confession to God. 

They are forgiven through repentance and the confession of faith in Jesus Christ, who paid for all their sins.  

In John 3:16, Jesus didn’t say

“that whoever confesses their sins shall not perish but have eternal life.” 

Jesus said,

that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” 

In Rom 10:9,13, Paul didn’t say,

If you confess your sins, you will be saved.” 

Paul said,

9 “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”  

Similarly, the rest of the following passages indicate that salvation does not occur in a vacuum but is always tied to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Acts 2:21 NIV

21 “And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 

Acts 16:31 NIV 

31 “They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.’” 

Rom 5:21 NIV

21 “so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” 

Rom 6:23 NIV

23 “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” 

1 Thess 5:9 NIV

9 “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Jn 1:12 NIV

12 “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” 

Acts 9:42 NIV

42 “This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.” 

Acts 5:14 NIV

14 “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.” 

Acts 11:21 NIV

21 “The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.” 

Acts 18:8 NIV

8 “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.” 

Acts 17:11 NIV

11 “So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?” 

The Apostle John in 1 John 1:9, makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ in this verse because He is not talking to unbelievers who need salvation. 

I have not found anywhere in the book of Acts any record of anyone commanding unbelievers to confess their sins to receive salvation and forgiveness from God the Father. 

We only see sinners convicted, repented, believed and confessed Jesus as Saviour and Lord and getting baptised in the biblical accounts. 

While nowhere in the Bible do we find evidence of unbelievers receiving forgiveness from God for salvation, we do find evidence of believers confessing and repenting from their sins to receive forgiveness from God. 

Kenneth Wuest said,

“The sinner is to believe (Jn 3:16). The saint is to confess (1 Jn 1:9).” 

So I John 1:9 is not an evangelistic message preached to unbelievers (as Joseph Prince has claimed) but a message for believers.  

Hence, Joseph Prince’s claim that John was preaching the gospel to the Gnostics is one that is based on ignorance. 

How can the gospel be preached in 1 John 1:9 if the name of the Lord Jesus Christ is not even mentioned? 

When the gospel is preached, the name of the Lord Jesus Christ has to be mentioned so that unbelievers know who they are placing their faith in (2 Cor 4:5; Acts 10:36). 

2 Cor 4:5 NIV

5 “For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” 

Acts 10:36 NIV

36 “You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.” 

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 190, Joseph Prince wrote,

“With this context in mind, it becomes clear that 1 John 1:9 was not written to believers.

The verse is a reference to the prayer that a sinner prays to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.

You may know this as the ‘prayer of salvation’ or ‘the sinner’s prayer.’” 

Joseph Prince is reading into the text! 

If you refer to 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness,” the name of Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord is not even included in the verse. 

Having the name of the Lord Jesus Christ being included is one thing, the other bigger issue is that the one praying the sinner’s prayer must confess that he believes in or placing his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

If these two things are not present, there is no saving faith. 

As it is his habit, Joseph Prince has to read them into the text of 1 John 1:9 to make it sound like a prayer of salvation. 

Such a sloppy treatment and abuse of a Bible text can only be

attributed to a false teacher of God’s word. 

If salvation can be obtained by confessing our sins to God the Father without even mentioning the name of Jesus, then Christ would have died for nothing. 

Then Joseph Prince would have sabotaged his main doctrine about the importance of the finished work of Christ. 

It is unacceptable for a well-known preacher to be ignorant about something that he is teaching. 

How such a sloppy teacher of God’s word can be world-renowned and able to attract the hundreds of thousands to listen to his sermons baffles me. 

It could have something to do with another realm of the spiritual that he has tapped into that has given him the powers of attraction and deception.  

4. In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Pages 194-195, Joseph Prince wrote,

“But His grace is cheapened when you think that He has only forgiven you of your sins up to the time you got saved, and after that point, you have to depend on your confession of sins to be forgiven.” 

George’s comments: 

Joseph Prince loves to use the straw man tactic to misrepresent the position of his theological opponents. 

I have studied him meticulously in his books and his video teachings – and I can tell you that that is one of the typical tactics he uses against what he called the ‘traditional law’ churches, ie, all of us. 

These are the common tactics that he uses to deceive:

‘Half-truths’,

‘argument from silence’,

‘out of context interpretation’

‘reading into the text’

and ‘straw man’. 

He uses this straw man tactic frequently and to maximum effect, as he is well aware that the more he uses this tactic to misrepresent us,

the more his flock are misinformed about and prejudiced against us,

and the more they will view his theological opponents with disdain.  

Joseph Prince, who ever says that we depend on our confession of sins to be forgiven. 

It is you who have put those words into our mouths.

It is you who have cooked this up and tarred it on us because you have an ulterior motive to cast us in a bad light to your flock, to set up a ‘we vs they’ enmity.  

Most Christians will have the understanding that it is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from our sins. 

But that doesn’t mean we don’t confess our sins because this is what God wants us to and because 1 John 1:9 has clearly instructed us to. 

We also know that though it is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us, God has ordained that forgiveness of sins cannot happen without our confession and repentance.

Joseph Prince, for a change, let me use your straw man tactic to hit you back in return and give you a taste of your own bitter medicine. 

For those who come to salvation in the Lord Jesus through your grace preaching, you would definitely lead them to say the sinner’s prayer. 

Using your straw man argument, I will say to you that when you lead them to say the sinner’s prayer, these people believe that it is only their prayers that have saved them.

I now say to you, “Why do these people of yours depend on their prayers to save them?” 

You will straightaway object and immediately shoot back and defend, and go on to explain that while they must say the sinner’s prayer, they do not depend on their prayers to be saved. 

They are well aware that it is the blood of Jesus that cleanses and saves them – so why are you, George, putting your words into their mouths? 

So, Joseph Prince, how is it like to be at the receiving end of your straw man tactic? 

Let me tell you that Joseph Prince uses this straw man tactic very frequently in his teachings and sermons. 

He does it by distorting our doctrinal stand by presenting an extreme image of it, in order to justify his false grace theology, which I have highlighted in the many articles I have written. 

5. In ‘Grace Revolution’, Page 84, Joseph Prince wrote,

“So is Joseph Prince against a Christian’s confessing his sins?

Let me say this clearly: I do believe in the confession of sins and I do confess my sins still.

But there’s a big difference now—I confess my sins knowing that all my sins are already forgiven. I don’t confess my sins to be forgiven.” 

So, Joseph Prince, you wrote that,

“I confess my sins, knowing that all my sins are already forgiven. I don’t confess my sins to be forgiven.” 

Joseph Prince, how dumb can you get? 

Don’t you know you have just made an illogical statement? 

I am utterly surprised such a dumb statement can be uttered from a world-renowned speaker. 

Why is there the need to confess your sins to God when they have all been forgiven? 

I mean, if you are already forgiven of all your sins, why bother confessing them to God. 

One confesses so that he can receive the forgiveness of his sins, and yet you said, “I don’t confess my sins to be forgiven.” 

It is either you don’t have to confess because there are no more sins to confess as they have all been forgiven, or you must confess because your sins are not forgiven yet. 

Joseph Prince, you mean to tell me such basic logic is beyond your comprehension? 

Let’s take a situation with two friends, John and Jim. 

Jim said, “John, I am sorry, I’ve taken two of your books without asking your permission the other day. Would you accept my confession?” 

John said, “No worries, your confession is accepted.” 

Jim said, “But John, I really mean I’m sorry, would you honestly accept my confession?” 

John said, “Yes, I will, and I have accepted your confession.” 

Jim said, “But John, I’ve done you a terrible thing by taking your books without your permission, will you really, really, really accept my confession?” 

John said, “Jim, this is the third time I said I accepted it. So shut up, and I don’t want to hear about it anymore!”  

If I committed a wrong against my friend and he has already accepted my confession and forgiven me, wouldn’t I be dumb if I keep confessing my wrong-doing to him? 

That would certainly irritate my friend. 

You know what – ‘Joseph Prince’s God’ (‘not George’s God or the believers’ God’) would be irritated and may tell him off if Joseph Prince does the same thing to him. 

‘Your God’ may say to you,

“Joseph Prince, I am sick and tired about your naggy ways because I have told you plenty of times that I have already accepted your confession because all your past, present and future sins have been forgiven at the cross.

And you yourself have been preaching so frequently about it.

If I have forgiven all your sins that you have committed and will ever commit in your entire life, why are you constantly hounding me like a naggy grandpa and keep confessing them to me?” 

Joseph Prince deserves to be scolded by ‘his God’ for coming to him time and again to confess his sins even though they have all been forgiven.  

Joseph Prince may protest,

“Yes God, I know, but I am confessing my sins because I have been forgiven.” 

‘His God’ may give him a bigger scolding,

“Hey Joseph, you are downright illogical to say that you confess your sins because they have already been forgiven.

If you sins are already forgiven, why the need to confess them?

Where is your sense of logic that I have created you with?

Threw it away?

Don’t ever assume that just because I am God, I cannot be logical, or being God must necessarily mean that I must act illogically.” 

Joseph Prince, if you can’t even pass the simple test of logic, please don’t delve into Bible exegesis. 

I would advise you to sign up for a course on logic before you try your luck on Bible interpretation. 

Since God has created us with logic, there is nothing wrong about appealing to logic, unless our human logic goes against the word of God.  

Let’s suppose we give Joseph Prince another chance, and I say to Joseph Prince,

“Okay, to give you a chance to redeem yourself, can you prove to me what you said,

“I confess my sins, knowing that all my sins are already forgiven (or I confess my sins because they are already forgiven).

I don’t confess my sins to be forgiven

(or I confess my sins not to be forgiven),”

is unambiguous and explicit teaching of the scriptures without a single contradictory evidence? 

This is to make sure that your teaching is scripture-based and not some strange doctrine that is taught by some fly-by-night preacher. 

I’m in extra-generous mood, and so I have decided to give you a handsome reward. 

If you can prove to me what you said,

“I confess my sins, knowing that all my sins are already forgiven (or I confess my sins because they are already forgiven).

I don’t confess my sins to be forgiven

(or I confess my sins not to be forgiven),”

is unambiguous and explicit teaching of the scriptures without a single contradictory evidence, 

I promise to reward you with a free round-the-world trip in 50 days, with all expenses paid. 

By the way, I’m serious about this deal. 

This is on record in print, and I cannot go back on what I said. 

But, Joseph Prince, if you can’t show me the evidence, I would be forced to confirm that you are a false teacher because you can’t even support your basic doctrine with clear and concrete Biblical evidence.  

This is my prophetic way of cornering Joseph Prince and closing all escape routes. 

Don’t panic! – I may be prophetically eccentric, but I am no reckless fool.  

Come on, Joseph Prince, if you are totally sincere and honest about your grace doctrine; if you really believe in it, you should be strongly and uncompromisingly preaching against the confession of sins, as after all, according to you, every single sin has been forgiven. 

If all sins are forgiven, what’s there to confess – Nothing! 

To be true to your doctrine, you should be strongly speaking out against the confession of sins. 

To your credit, you have done the brave thing by teaching against the confession of sins in the first part of the video. 

Please view the video again,

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JPkEhpzWg6PnwCyK_Q–2SJ-E79BP6Vz    

Here is what Joseph Prince said in the video,

“Now, if I in one day, we have this teaching, when I sin, I am unrighteous, and depending on your background and denomination, there are certain things you do to get re-righteous. And then before the day is over, something happens again and you are now unrighteous. And then you got to get re-righteous. Something is wrong with that teaching.” 

“Alright, watch this now. I am walking in the light. When I have a bad thought or bad word, whatever, bad intention and I caught myself, do I find myself in darkness, and I have to go through some whatever your belief is, your denominational beliefs is, whatever, then I get back into the light. This is what some Christians believe. No, no.”  

In the same courageous spirit that you said in the first part of the video,

you should tell your people that they should never utter these three words ever again, ‘confession of sins’

because it is totally unbiblical as there is no more sin ever to confess because Christ has forgiven all of them at the cross.   

The reason you have to end up making contradictory and illogical statements is that you somehow know there is something wrong with this doctrine.  

But you are too proud to admit you are wrong and to make a ‘U-turn’.  

You somehow are aware in your heart that your doctrine is not fool-proof and contains loopholes.  

So you have no choice but to engage in double-talk as a strategy to defend your doctrine.  

But in so doing, you have spewed out nonsensical arguments and made confusing statements.   

Come on, Joseph Prince, you should be more courageous than that.  

Be brave and make your point unambiguous. 

Don’t try to be ambiguous. 

Make your statements clean, sharp and clear. 

There is no need for you to create a back door of escape just in case you are caught with your pants down.  

You ought to be a man of conviction.  

If you really believe in your interpretation of 1 John 1:9,

then go all the way and say confession of sins is totally wrong,

because that verse is not for believers but for unbelievers.  

Since the confession of sins is totally wrong,

you must tell your people never to ever mention these three words, ‘confession of sins’ anymore.  

But the trouble is – why are you compromising on your grace doctrine?  

Why are you now saying that confession of sins is not wrong? 

Please view the video for the last time,

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1JPkEhpzWg6PnwCyK_Q–2SJ-E79BP6Vz

Here is what Joseph Prince said in the video:

“Does Pastor Prince believe in confessing your sins?

Honestly, this is once and for all.

There are people who misrepresent me out there.

Pastor Prince never said, alright, you cannot confess your sins; it is wrong to confess your sins.”  

In ‘Grace Revolution’, Page 84, Joseph Prince wrote,

“Let me say this clearly: I do believe in the confession of sins and I do confess my sins still.”  

Joseph Prince, if you now say that it is not wrong to confess your sins, then why did you make such a big fuss by telling the world that chapter one of 1 John is written to unbelievers, and hence 1 John 1:9 is inapplicable to us, believers? 

Why? 

You wanted to push the idea that confession of sins is not for the Christians, and they shouldn’t be doing it, right? 

If that is so, why are you making another dumb and contradictory statement that you are not against the confession of sins, and it’s not wrong to do it? 

And now you are even saying you are for confession of sins, and you are personally confessing sins. 

It doesn’t matter what reason/s you give for the confession of sins, (which you say it is because your sins are forgiven – which is a nonsensical statement anyway).   

Once you agree that you are for the confession of sins (notwithstanding the reason), you are undoing what you try to prove in 1 John 1:9 that confession of sins is not for Christians. 

If you are serious about your position in 1 John 1:9, then you should be saying,

“I am totally against the confession of sins because it’s wrong as all our sins are forgiven, and there is nowhere in scripture by Paul or John or any other scripture writer who have told us to confess our sins.”  

But if you still insist that confession of sins is right

(whatever the reason/s), then you need to issue a public statement to recant what you said about 1 John 1:9. 

Unbelievably, in the next video that you will be watching, I have caught Joseph Prince again contradicting himself and making more flip-flops. 

Please view the 30-second video,

https://drive.google.com/open?id=16RcfLblXC2ZxeDre3P9vazldjWDkIZTy

(Source: Joseph Prince Believes In The Confession of Sins  1 John 1:9) 

Here is what Joseph Prince said in the video,

“I want to give you the Greek right now.

If we are confessing, (present tense), our sins, he is faithful and just to have forgiven us our sins and to have cleansed us, (both are aorist tense), from all unrighteousness (1 Jn 1:9).

In other words, we have been forgiven; that’s why we are confessing.

And if we forget to confess, alright, it doesn’t mean that you are not forgiven.

The idea that you need to confess first before God forgives will put you in bondage, my friend.

And in the entire New Testament, there’s only one verse that people build their whole life on, 1 Jn 1:9.” 

First, don’t be deceived by his lavish throwing of the Greek language to impress you. 

If the text is to be interpreted in his way, it should be reflected in at least one or two translations of the Bible. 

But none of the plenty of Bible translations do it that way. 

They have all, with one voice, translated it with the same meaning that we all have understood 1 John 1:9 all this while. 

Again, Joseph Prince is such an arrogant fellow that he is saying all the Bible translators who are Bible scholars are wrong, and he is the only one who has gotten the translation right.   

But my focus is not on this but in alerting you that he had made another flip-flop again on the same issue.  

By saying in the video,

“In other words, we have been forgiven, that’s why we are confessing,” he is using 1 John 1:9 to justify the way that he, as a Christian, is confessing.  

He is not permitted to do that without contradicting himself because he had always viewed that 1 John 1:9 was not written to believers but unbelievers (Gnostics).  

So how can he now use the same 1 John 1:9 to justify the way a Christian like him ought to confess – that a Christian can confess because his sins have been forgiven?  

How can he invoke 1 John 1:9 to support that this is how a believer ought to confess, when according to him, 1 John 1:9 was not written for believers, but unbelievers?  

Joseph Prince – you mean to tell me that you are not even aware that you are making another contradictory statement about your doctrinal stand? – I can’t believe this!  

What is worse is that he made yet another flip-flop in the short 30-second video when he said,

“And in the entire New Testament, there’s only one verse that people build their whole life on, 1 Jn 1:9.”  

So he is now suggesting people, referring to believers, shouldn’t have relied on the only verse, 1 John 1:9 in the New Testament, to guide them in their confession of sins – definitely implying and admitting that 1 John 1:9 does not apply to believers.  

One moment he uses 1 John 1:9 to justify the way a believer ought to confess (first part of the video), and the next (second part of the video), he strongly implied that the same verse, 1 John 1:9, is not applicable to believers.  

(In fact, from his books, he unambiguously teaches that 1 John 1:9 was not written to believers, and hence not applicable to them).  

Frankly, I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of his constant and endless flip-flops and double-talk. 

Can you honestly trust this so-called world-class teacher who says one thing at one time and another at another time? 

If we cannot accept such blatant flip-flops and self-contradictory statements from an ordinary person, why is it that so many have accepted and even adored him as an excellent teacher of God’s word?

Doesn’t the use of double-talk tell us something about the real character of Joseph Prince?  

Joseph Prince has taught many times in his books and sermons that we need to confess our righteousness and not our sins because we need to be righteousness-conscious and not sin-conscious.  

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 192, Joseph Prince wrote,

“Beloved, instead of being sin-conscious, become righteousness conscious…”  

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 193, Joseph Prince wrote,

“Jesus wants you to have no more consciousness of your sins. Instead, He wants you to have a consciousness of your righteousness in Him.”  

Now Joseph Prince, what’s going on? 

One moment you say we must be righteousness-conscious and we must never talk about sin because we must never be sin-conscious, and the next moment, you say that we confess our sins because we have been forgiven.  

One moment you say, “confess righteousness,” the next, you say, “I am not against confessing our sins.”  

You are really confusing everybody.  

(By the way, the gift of confusion is not a gift I can find anywhere in the scriptures.)  

The fact that you said you are confessing your sins (notwithstanding the reason)

plainly shows that you are still focussing on the negative

– being sin-conscious (which is disallowed by your own teaching),

instead of focussing on the positive – being righteousness-conscious.  

According to your argument, it is either we confess our righteousness or our sins.  

But you are now trying to tell us that we can do both. 

You are really a resident expert at speaking on both sides of the mouth.   

Furthermore, you said the Holy Spirit never convicts us of our sins but our righteousness because our sins have all been forgiven.  

You also said that it is the devil who reminds us of our sins and not the Holy Spirit.  

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 252, Joseph Prince wrote,

“That is why the enemy wants to keep you sin-conscious. Confessing your sins all the time keeps you sin-conscious.”  

So why are you now undoing all that you have preached in the above by saying,

“I do believe in the confession of sins and I do confess my sins still.” (In ‘Grace Revolution’, Page 84)  

You claimed in the video that people had misrepresented you.  

The real truth is you have misrepresented yourself.  

“Joseph Prince claims that he has been misrepresented by others on his teachings when he is the culprit for misrepresenting the teachings of Jesus and Paul.” (George Ong)  

You can’t even explain basic truths with clarity, accuracy and unambiguity.  

You have given many conflicting signals that confuse people to no end.  

And I hope you are not being confused too.  

Through your own fault by not making sure that what you taught can withstand the scrutiny of scriptures and logic, you have the gumption to blame it on others by saying that they have misrepresented you.  

Come on, be a true leader, and admit fault.  

The worst in a leader is to blame others for the mistakes he makes, instead of owning up and apologise.  

While the scripture in 1 John 1:9 clearly says that we are to confess our sins in order to be forgiven, you had to go the opposite way by saying we confess our sins because we are forgiven.  

In fact, you have raised two issues in your book that are clearly blasphemous to the sanctity and credibility of the word of God and the God of the word.  

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 185, Joseph Prince wrote,

“Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the forgiveness of sins is according to the confession of our sins. Nowhere!”  

In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 184, Joseph Prince wrote,

“This teaching on the confession of sins has caused so much bondage and oppression in the church.”  

Isn’t that open rebellion?  

Because you are deliberately and defiantly teaching something against what God has clearly revealed in His word.  

So friends tell me – How can this guy be a true teacher of God’s word?  

How can he still be considered a shepherd of God’s flock?  

Joseph Prince is clearly a false teacher and a dangerous wolf who is teaching his own ‘Grace Religion,’ not the ‘True Grace’ that is taught in the Bible.  

Note: The next chapter, will in a major way, be a continuation of what was written in this article. 

×
×

Basket