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.