Joseph Prince, by his words and teachings, have revealed himself as an unrepentant double-talker – By Rev George Ong (Dated 25 Jan 2023)
This is Part 2.
For those who have missed reading Part 1, please click on this link below:
Appendix 1: Articles by David Kowalski against Joseph Prince’s heresies.
Appendix 2: My clarification on what Michael Han wrote in his Facebook on 22 Dec 2022 in response to one of my previous articles regarding Joseph Prince and Olivia Lum.
Don’t miss the 10-second video of Joseph Prince under Point Number 2.
Please see excerpts of the last item of this article, item number 7:
7. The no-repentance and the false gospel preached by Joseph Prince would only produce false fruits and counterfeit converts.
Joseph Prince said;
“I always say, let the fruits speak for itself because our Lord Jesus says, by their fruits, you shall know them. Not by the talk.”
When Joseph Prince preaches the no-repentance and the false gospel,
how can he claim to have true fruits of salvation to begin with – and that includes the salvation of the lady he quoted?
An only-believe and a no-repentance gospel preached by Joseph Prince is not the gospel that the Lord Jesus and the Apostles preached.
It is not the gospel that well-regarded and credible preachers of the word and the gospel preached, namely:
Charles Spurgeon wrote;
“I learn from the Scriptures that repentance is just as necessary to salvation as faith is, and the faith that has not repentance going with it will have to be repented of.”
Arthur Pink said;
“Those preachers who tell sinners they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting… are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works and that heaven must be earned by our own efforts.”
DA Carson wrote;
“Cheap grace preaches forgiveness without repentance…”
JI Packer said;
“There are ministers who never speak of repentance or self-denial. Naturally, they are popular, but they are false prophets.”
In short, Joseph Prince’s no-repentance and false gospel, would bring in loads of fake fruits and counterfeit converts,
and, according to Jesus, it would only lead them to perish (Lk 13:3,5).
True fruits and genuine converts can, however occur, not because Joseph Prince preaches the true gospel,
but purely because of the true grace of God
– that God can use anything, even making a donkey talk, to bring about His own sovereign purposes.
(This article was also sent to Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) office, and for the attention of the Executive Committee Members.)
In a weekly Sunday sermon aired on YouTube on 15 Jan 2023, 2 Sundays ago, Joseph Prince said;
Please click here to view the 1-minute video of what Joseph Prince said:
“Now, I am very humbled to hear that God wants me to be the one to appear in spite of some people saying that my doctrine is wrong. But God thought that, put this guy down there, his doctrine might save her. And she got saved.
So, whatever it is folks, I am very humbled and complimented. The Lord chose that particular episode. Amen. Maybe, you know, you can argue as much as you want, but if you have a testimony like that, share with me about your ministry, about your revelation that you don’t agree with me about.
Never mind. I always say, let the fruits speak for itself because our Lord Jesus says, by their fruits, you shall know them. Not by the talk, Amen.”
1. The First Proof that Joseph Prince is a Serial Double-Talker – pretending to be opened to discussion when he is defiant to correction.
Joseph Prince said;
“Maybe, you know, you can argue as much as you want, but if you have a testimony like that, share with me about your ministry, about your revelation that you don’t agree with me about.”
What Joseph Prince said is a classic case of double-talking.
From what he said, he gives the false impression
that he is opened to discussion and what others have to say about his false teachings.
First, there was an occasion in which a high-level team of Singapore Senior Pastors met Joseph Prince, to confront him about his unbiblical teachings,
but he wasn’t willing to be corrected and remained defiant and the meeting turned ugly.
You need to ask Joseph Prince whether such an incident did take place?
There was also a Singapore Bishop who spoke to Joseph Prince for about 3 hours regarding his strange teachings,
and yet, Joseph Prince wouldn’t budge one bit about his false doctrines.
You have to ask Joseph Prince whether such an incident did occur.
The truth is many Pastors and leaders, not just in Singapore but also around the world, have approached Joseph Prince over his heresies,
but he didn’t even bother to reply to them, much less meet them?
One clear example was when David Kowalski, an Assemblies of God Minister and a reliable Bible researcher and writer from America,
tried to contact Joseph Prince about his teachings but to no avail.
David Kowalski wrote,
“The validity of preaching on hell (Prince opposes such preaching or teaching, won’t put hell in his statement of faith, and has ignored my repeated inquiries about his beliefs on the subject).”
What David Kowalski wrote can be found in this link:
https://www.apologeticsindex.org/2603-contrasting-the-teaching-of-joseph-prince
The next example was when Chace Gordon, another American, who penned a detailed refutation of Joseph Prince’s heresies, wrote:
“When I first stumbled into the false grace teachings of Joseph Prince, I was deeply grieved over it and sensed a tidal wave of heresy coming to American shores. I felt America was blessed that he was from Singapore, or the pervasive deception would have been even deadlier in America than it currently is, because it gave us time to counteract the error by teaching the Word before he became an American superstar and the false doctrine would expedite the demise of church influence in preserving the culture. I knew of NO ONE (initially) who was speaking out against this false doctrine on a large stage, only quiet murmurings of resistance, or the typical grumblings of denominational critics who despise prosperity, big churches and the Word of Faith movement.
I do not know Joseph Prince personally (although I know many close to him and some of his elders before him, both living and dead), but I became intimately acquainted with his message, and within a few weeks period, I wrote a detailed refutation of his book “Destined to Reign” and submitted it to fellow ministers whom I have relationship with, and to friends who accepted his teaching and propagated it themselves. My notes eventually became widespread, not because I led a public campaign attacking Joseph Prince, but because it was being privately distributed by other ministers who were also greatly disturbed.
During that time, before publicly denouncing him, I even contacted Joseph Prince Ministries and submitted a copy of my notes to them for them to respond to or correct any false conclusions I may have come to regarding his doctrine. After the typical form letter response, I finally received an email from one of the associate pastors who responded to none of the content itself, only stating that they did not wish to debate for the sake of Christian unity…but none of the grave concerns that I had communicated were addressed or any of the blatant errors apologized for.
Finally, I started to get contacted by pastors who had received copies of my notes given them by friends of friends. I started hearing testimonies of church splits and the like; but I still knew of few who were publicly taking a stand against this message. I did, however, hear of numerous private confrontations by respected ministers, who challenged him on his doctrine but he refused correction. If anything, Joseph Prince dug in his heels and even increased his outlandish unbiblical comments.
It became clear to me that there were grounds here for marking him publicly, as the heresy was widely publicized, damage to the body of Christ was ongoing, even impacting people within my own church congregation, and repentance was refused.”
What Chace Gordon wrote can be found in this link:
https://burton.tv/2014/01/03/joseph-prince-false-grace-and-the-risk-of-millions-falling-away/
You see my point?
I have shown you just 2 examples.
But because I do lots of research on Joseph Prince’s heresies on the internet,
I found many others who also went through the same experience as David Kowalski and Chace Gordon did with Joseph Prince.
The fact that Joseph Prince isn’t even open to correction by the plenty of Pastors and members
ought to be a strong signal that Prince is a heretic as all heretics act in that same way, not allowing anyone to correct them.
I hope you are beginning to see that Joseph Prince is a Great Pretender
as he is totally insincere about wanting others to share with him about his wrong teachings.
Why would anyone want to speak to him when he has time and again,
not been opened to correction and stuck stubbornly to his heretical teachings.
It would be a total waste of time and effort for anyone to even attempt to talk to him.
2. The Second Proof that Joseph Prince is a Serial Double-Talker – the use of Matthew 7:20 as support for his doctrine & ministry is blatantly contradictory to his core grace doctrine.
Joseph Prince said;
“Never mind. I always say, let the fruits speak for itself because our Lord Jesus says, by their fruits, you shall know them. Not by the talk, Amen.”
Joseph Prince alludes to Matthew 7:20 to support his doctrine and ministry, and to hit his critics:
Matthew 7:20 NIV
20 So then, you will know them by their fruits.
In doing so, Joseph Prince is blatantly contradicting himself.
This is because, according to his grace doctrine,
Matthew 7:20 in the Gospel of Matthew, which happened before the cross, is under the Old Covenant
and isn’t applicable to New Covenant believers at all.
In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Page 97, Joseph Prince wrote;
“However, the new covenant does not actually begin with the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as these books deal predominantly with the life of Jesus before the cross.
In fact, the new covenant begins after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Hence, the cross is our clearest marking point of where the new covenant begins.”
In ‘Destined To Reign’, Page 92, Joseph Prince wrote;
“The new covenant only begins after the cross, when the Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost.”
If the New Covenant only begins after the cross, as Joseph Prince has written,
how can he use Matthew 7:20, which happened before the cross and under the Old Covenant
to support his New Covenant doctrine and ministry?
Can you see how self-contradictory this unprincipled man is?
How on earth could people ever trust this fellow for the inconsistent and self-contradictory way he handled Bible texts?
Second, because he teaches that the gospels which happened before the cross are under the Old Covenant,
the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew chapters 5-7, which include Matthew 7:20,
is also irrelevant to New Covenant believers.
In ‘Grace Revolution’, Page 13, Joseph Prince wrote;
“The good news is that Jesus didn’t stop there. He preached the Sermon on the Mount and then He came down.
Spiritually speaking, if the King had stayed on the mountain, there would have been no redemption for us.”
Please click here to view a 10-second video of what Joseph Prince said;
“Now if Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount and He stayed up there on the Mount, there’ll be no hope for us.”
How can Joseph Prince who categorically states that there is no redemption/salvation and hope for us in the message of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew chapters 5-7
because it happened under the Old Covenant
be using Matthew 7:20, which is part of the Sermon on the Mount
to support his doctrine and ministry and to hit at his critics?
If Joseph Prince said that what was preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount can’t even save us because it happened before the cross and under the Old Covenant,
how then can he allude to Matthew 7:20, which is under the Sermon on the Mount, to support his New Covenant ministry and doctrine?
This is nothing but brazen double-talking.
3. The Third Proof that Joseph Prince is a Serial Double-Talker – the pride of Joseph Prince is deceptively disguised as humility.
Joseph Prince said;
“Now, I am very humbled to hear that God wants me to be the one to appear in spite of some people saying that my doctrine is wrong. But God thought that, put this guy down there, his doctrine might save her. And she got saved.
So, whatever it is folks, I am very humbled and complimented. The Lord chose that particular episode. Amen.”
There is a story told of a competition in a school in which the principal offered a badge of honour to the humblest student.
A boy came out tops and won the competition.
The next day, he wore the badge, ‘The humblest boy in school’ in class.
And every student in the class laughed at him.
This is because if the boy were really humble, he wouldn’t have worn the badge in the first place and paraded his humility in front of others.
In the same way, when the so-called humility of a person is paraded for the world to see,
you can be rest assured that is not humility but unadulterated pride.
And parading pride under the guise of humility is the worst form of egotism.
That’s what Joseph Prince does.
He parades his ‘humility’ to the whole world that God had used him to save the lady.
What is worse is that Joseph Prince uses his so-called ‘humble’ episode
to spite his critics to imply that they have no fruits and they talk too much.
Prince does that both by his insulting words and his sarcastic action by putting his forefinger against his lips,
an action that is deliberately calculated to egg his congregation to join in with laughter as part of the mockery.
Tell me honestly, is that what a truly humble person would do?
Is that true humility by any stretch?
Is that true graciousness that is expected of a world-renowned preacher of God’s grace?
What is unacceptable is that Joseph Prince is committing the same flaw he has criticised others with.
I remembered there were times when Prince said in his sermons that once a person says he is humble, he no longer is.
(You must remember that I have viewed Joseph Prince’s sermon/teaching videos much more than most people do.)
This observation of mine was confirmed by 2 persons.
First, about a week ago, Peter Paul (who followed Joseph Prince’s sermons/teachings closely) wrote a comment in my YouTube video, titled,
“Joseph Prince implied his critics have no fruits, yet he himself has lost thousands of his fruits,”
as follows (note, the following comment is unedited):
“I remember that many years ago he criticized the traditional churches for preaching and saying that they were very humble. He said that it was very hypocritical to preach humility because the moment you say you are humble, you are no longer humble.
I remember he said this many times and criticized that most traditional preachers would show that they are very humble by walking down from the pulpit in deliberate show of ‘artificial’ humility. However, now I am hearing him saying it or behaving like that himself!
While I believe that some preachers who preach humility are hypocrites (probably they are the religious preachers), but I find that Joseph Prince is more hypocritical than them. It is because he preached against them, and then now, he tries to show that he is really a more humble preacher.
If we question his followers, they would say, “No, he is a grace preacher. He would never say that or behave like that. Don’t judge!” This is the reason why we should show this to them – https://youtu.be/a5mWX5aH8jc?t=40
He says, “I am very humble (or humbled by the Lord)!” Is he very ‘humbled’ by the Lord? But how is he ‘humbled’ by the Lord (when he keeps boasting about ‘that particular episode’)? I guess only he knows if he is really humble.”
Peter Paul’s comments was followed by Lindsay Lim, who wrote in the YouTube that she agreed with Peter Paul
as she remembered that was what Joseph Prince said when she attended New Creation Church.
You must note that Lindsay Lim was an Ex-New Creation Church member for 18 years, and she certainly knows what she is talking about.
If these 3 episodes cannot convince you that Joseph Prince is a serial double-talker, nothing else would.
4. Is Joseph Prince’s fruit of conversion/salvation necessarily a true vindication that he is preaching true doctrine?
Joseph Prince said;
“Now, I am very humbled to hear that God wants me to be the one to appear in spite of some people saying that my doctrine is wrong. But God thought that, put this guy down there, his doctrine might save her. And she got saved.”
Joseph Prince is implying that just because someone is saved under his ministry,
that must be a vindication that he is preaching true doctrine, even though others may accuse him of preaching wrong doctrine.
Well, not necessary.
Dr Chris Kang is an excellent example of one whose conversion was triggered by Joseph Prince’s ministry,
but only to realise later that Joseph Prince’s hyper grace gospel is a false gospel that leads many to destruction;
and he left New Creation Church subsequently.
For those who have missed reading Dr Chris Kang’s testimony, please click on the link below;
5. A ‘true’ fruit of Joseph Prince can turn out to be false over the course of time.
Joseph Prince said;
“Now, I am very humbled to hear that God wants me to be the one to appear in spite of some people saying that my doctrine is wrong. But God thought that, put this guy down there, his doctrine might save her. And she got saved.”
When Joseph Prince pronounced that this lady was saved,
does this mean she is confirmed to be a true fruit of his grace teaching or gospel preaching?
(Does Joseph Prince know this lady, who is staying in a foreign country, personally, to be so sure that she is really saved?
Moreover, Prince’s no-repentance gospel and a false gospel is bound to produce many false converts, not true converts.)
Well, not necessary again.
Was Olivia Lum a true fruit of Joseph Prince’s Prosperity Gospel and right-believing doctrine?
Of course not.
Yes, for a while, when she was at the height of her success, this seems to be so.
But eventually, it was proven that she isn’t the true fruit that Joseph Prince has trumpeted to the world.
For those who have missed the Joseph Prince and the Olivia Lum episode, kindly click on the link below:
Would anybody dare to assure
that this lady whom Joseph Prince has boasted to the world that God has used him to bring her to Christ,
wouldn’t turn out to be another Olivia Lum?
Kindly refer to Appendix 2 at the end of this article for my clarification on what Michael Han wrote in his Facebook on 22 Dec 2022 in response to one of my previous articles regarding Joseph Prince and Olivia Lum.
6. Is the presence of fruit a prerequisite to judge whether Joseph Prince is preaching true doctrine?
Joseph Prince seemed to imply that one must have fruits in order to judge whether he is preaching true doctrine.
What is worse is Prince seemed to be saying that that person must display the same kind of fruits that he has shown – about bringing someone to Christ, before one can judge whether he is preaching true doctrine:
Joseph Prince said;
“Maybe, you know, you can argue as much as you want, but if you have a testimony like that, share with me about your ministry, about your revelation that you don’t agree with me about.
Never mind. I always say, let the fruits speak for itself because our Lord Jesus says, by their fruits, you shall know them. Not by the talk, Amen.”
Let’s take an example of a newly born-again believer (who is a lecturer in philosophy in a university in his 50s),
who recently came to know Christ, and hasn’t yet displayed any concrete fruits in his ministry,
but stumbled upon Joseph Prince’ false doctrine that confession of sins to Christ is disallowed because every future sin has been forgiven at the cross.
But because he has read 1 John 1:9 and did some study on it, and he has also been taught by a mature believer about the need to confess our sins, he wrote a short article against this teaching of Joseph Prince.
Can anyone in his right mind dare say that just because he is a new believer with no concrete fruits yet,
he has disqualified himself from commenting on Joseph Prince’s false doctrine regarding the confession of sins?
Of course not.
When a doctrine is false, not only mature believers who have many fruits under their belt could contend against it,
but any believer, who knows his doctrine, could also do the same.
7. The no-repentance and the false gospel preached by Joseph Prince would only produce false fruits and counterfeit converts.
Joseph Prince said;
“I always say, let the fruits speak for itself because our Lord Jesus says, by their fruits, you shall know them. Not by the talk.”
When Joseph Prince preaches the no-repentance and the false gospel,
how can he claim to have true fruits of salvation to begin with – and that includes the salvation of the lady he quoted?
An only-believe and a no-repentance gospel preached by Joseph Prince is not the gospel that the Lord Jesus and the Apostles preached.
It is not the gospel that well-regarded and credible preachers of the word and the gospel preached, namely:
Charles Spurgeon wrote;
“I learn from the Scriptures that repentance is just as necessary to salvation as faith is, and the faith that has not repentance going with it will have to be repented of.”
Arthur Pink said;
“Those preachers who tell sinners they may be saved without forsaking their idols, without repenting… are as erroneous and dangerous as others who insist that salvation is by works and that heaven must be earned by our own efforts.”
DA Carson wrote;
“Cheap grace preaches forgiveness without repentance…”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote;
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance…”
JI Packer said;
“There are ministers who never speak of repentance or self-denial. Naturally, they are popular, but they are false prophets.”
John Stott said;
“First, there must be a renunciation of sin. This, in a word, is repentance. It is the first part of Christian conversion. It can in no circumstances be bypassed.”
John MacArthur wrote;
“No message that eliminates repentance can properly be called the gospel…”
David Pawson said;
“Now the preachers of free grace are saying, ‘The only thing you need do is believe. And there’s no need for repentance to be saved.’ And this (false) teaching is now spreading around the world from Singapore and from here in America. No repentance. You can be saved without repentance.”
Derek Prince said;
“True faith is impossible without repentance… without true repentance there can never be true faith.”
If you have missed reading the article, titled,
“Joseph Prince’s no-repentance gospel is denounced by Derek Prince because it is deceptive & it leads people to perish,”
kindly click on the link below;
In short, Joseph Prince’s no-repentance and false gospel, would bring in loads of fake fruits and counterfeit converts,
and, according to Jesus, it would only lead them to perish (Lk 13:3,5).
True fruits and genuine converts can, however occur, not because Joseph Prince preaches the true gospel,
but purely because of the true grace of God
– that God can use anything, even making a donkey talk, to bring about His own sovereign purposes.
Rev George Ong
Appendix 1
More of what David Kowalski has written against Joseph Prince’s teachings:
David Kowalski wrote against Joseph Prince’s Modern “Grace Message” – Revolution or Rebellion? Read excerpts as follows:
https://www.apologeticsindex.org/4981-antinomianism
Its advocates claim the teaching is an end-time message of a “grace revolution” (Joseph Prince) while critics see it as merely a fresh spin given to the rebellious, old heresy of Antinomianism – a heresy named in the 16th century by Martin Luther, in which proponents in some manner negate or minimize any application of the obligatory nature of God’s moral law (and/or the implications of that obligation) for believers.
The term “hyper-grace” has become popular to describe the “grace movement” – due in part, I think, to the writings of Michael Brown (see his book). While I agree with Dr. Brown in essence I think the term “hyper-grace” falls short as a moniker for the “grace” movement in the same way the term “hyper-faith” did when people once used it to denote the Word-Faith heresy. The problem with the “grace message” is not that it presents us with “hyper-grace” (“hyper” meaning excessive or fanatical) so much as it offers a pseudo (unbiblical and therefore false) “grace” that has for centuries been called Antinomianism.
Calvinists say those who do not persevere in displaying this godly image were never true children to begin with while Arminians say that a child of God can forfeit their heavenly inheritance through a persistent and willful lifestyle of ungodliness. Only Antinomians contradict the New Testament teaching that the ungodly will by no means inherit the kingdom of God:
I have dialogued with followers of Joseph Prince, for example, who have maintained that their misconduct (including unrepentant, homosexual sin) does not matter since God does not even see their evil deeds.
David Kowalski wrote against Joseph Prince’s teachings:
https://www.apologeticsindex.org/3115-joseph-prince
David Kowalski wrote a sermon and contrasted it with the teachings of Joseph Prince:
https://www.apologeticsindex.org/2603-contrasting-the-teaching-of-joseph-prince
Appendix 2
Clarification of what Michael Han wrote in his Facebook on 22 Dec 2022 in response to one of my previous articles regarding Joseph Prince and Olivia Lum
About one month ago on 22 Dec 2022, a friend of mine alerted me to an article written by Michael Han on his Facebook on the same day (22 Dec 2022), titled,
“Did Joseph Prince’s prosperity gospel cause the “destruction” of Hyflux’s Olivia Lum?”
In that article, Michael Han referred to one article that I wrote in my website about Joseph Prince and Olivia Lum,
and he mentioned one or two good things about what I wrote and I thank him for that.
Michael Han also wrote, however, that he disagrees with me
for pinning the downfall of Olivia Lum solely on Joseph Prince himself,
as Olivia Lum must also be personally responsible for her actions.
I am not the sort to write back in a counter reply to a fellow Christian brother’s comment (but not heretics, such as Joseph Prince), unless it is really necessary.
Actually, I didn’t intend to, as to me, this is not an issue of crucial importance, and that’s why I didn’t act until now.
But I thought since I am mentioning about Olivia Lum in this article, I might as well use this opportunity to clarify one fact
– that I have never viewed Joseph Prince as the sole cause of Olivia Lum’s downfall in the Hyflux fiasco,
and it is my opinion that Olivia Lum is also herself to blame.
I am writing this not to reply to Michael Han,
but to clarify my position to those who are the readers of my website
and also, at the same time, have chanced upon the article that Michael Han had written on his Facebook on 22 Dec 2022.
A few years ago, I categorically said to an Ex-NCC member, whose testimony is featured on this website
that Olivia Lum is herself responsible for her own actions, even though it was Joseph Prince who had influenced her.
I have also produced a video on this website in Aug 2020, and in that video, I categorically said the following:
2 Timothy 4:3-4 NIV
3 “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Note that it is the people themselves who initiated the whole process of being deceived by false teachers,
and have allowed themselves to be deceived.
So, Joseph Prince cannot share the total blame
as it is the people themselves who are to be blamed too as they choose to be deceived.
And the tragedy is that both the deceiver, who peddles false doctrine,
and those who choose to be deceived by heresies are headed towards destruction.