Joseph Prince falsely accuses 12 Church Fathers, especially Martin Luther, John Calvin & John Wesley as Antinomians & lied he isn’t one – By Rev George Ong (Dated 27 Feb 2024)

 

Featured YouTube Comments:

 

@ginalau134

 

“Someone from this New Creation Church

 

told me years ago

 

halfway through preaching, Joseph Prince paused

 

and said God sent a message to him

 

to ask the congregation to invest in gold!

 

My goodness!

 

If you are a true Christian,

 

you would know who is the one actually whispering to him!

 

I mean God asking the congregation to invest in gold

 

in the midst of teaching His words??

 

I found it so hard to believe.

 

So, I seek confirmation from another member of New Creation Church

 

if really such an event happened.

 

She told me indeed.

 

I asked her so did she invest in gold after hearing that?

 

She replied no.

 

Just when I thought this lady has got some wisdom in her,

 

her reply almost made me fell off my chair.

 

She said she didn’t invest

 

because she didn’t know how to!”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

This story was confirmed by an Ex New Creation Church member,

 

who said she heard the same thing mentioned by Joseph Prince.

 

@ginalau134

 

“An ex-colleague of mine attends this New Creation Church

 

and all our office people knew

 

that he has extramarital affair with a China woman.

 

I told him that was so wrong!

 

It’s adultery.

 

He said it is ok.

 

God loves us, and we are just like naughty little children

 

that misbehave at times.

 

God will forgive us!

 

Many people attend this New Creation Church

 

because they will not be convicted of their sins!

 

Another one told me,

 

we should not try too hard not to sin

 

because we are saved by the grace of God

 

as Joseph Prince said.

 

No amount of effort will earn us a ticket to heaven.

 

It is by God’s grace that we are saved.

 

Sounds correct.

 

But the most outrageous part follows.

 

She then went on to say:

 

‘that’s why Pastor Joseph Prince says, for example,

 

if you have the urge to smoke, just go and smoke.

 

After that, come back and repent will do.’

 

She said Pastor Joseph Prince

 

also said he can’t even guarantee

 

if he won’t commit adultery.

 

So, no one is perfect and we are saved by the grace of God!

 

That’s his forte … preaching half-truths to deceive people!”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Now you know why so many goats

 

are attending New Creation Church.

 

I mean, why not?

 

‘All my sins, including my sins of adultery, etc, are forgiven.

 

God is very forgiving and understanding.

 

Even when I sin and commit the sin of adultery,

 

the Holy Spirit will not convict me of my adulterous sins

 

but of how righteous I am before God.’

 

Friends, Joseph Prince, with his heretical doctrines,

 

are destroying lives and sending them to hell.

 

@papichoku2442

 

“When you see church members

 

displaying the photo of their lead pastor

 

in their homes or offices

 

which I know some New Creation Church members do,

 

you know there is a serious problem.

 

They are worshiping a man rather than God.”

 

@joyceliew4352

 

“I remember there was a year when Joseph Prince

 

gave out his personal poster of himself

 

resting beside a river.

 

Just imagine putting up a poster of your pastor

 

in your house, study room, bedroom…etc?

 

Reason of the poster was to encourage all

 

to be reminded to be planted by the river,

 

a picture of rest.

 

Joseph Prince always said: look to Jesus!

 

Actually, I think he meant to look to Joseph Prince.

 

Joseph Prince is a man,

 

who loves to draw attention to himself.

 

His pastors never fail to mention his name

 

whenever they preach,

 

giving Joseph Prince much glory all the time.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

I have always said that Joseph Prince is such a proud man.

 

But from this episode, he is also a vain man

 

who is not only satisfied to be seen every Sunday by his members,

 

but also every day in their homes and bedrooms.

 

The Bottomline:

 

Joseph Prince wants to be hero worshipped

 

by his congregation, and he is promoting it.

 

@siewkong0107

 

“I believe the churches in Singapore

 

should write to the National Council of Churches

 

to highlight the indiscretion of Joseph Prince’s teaching.

 

See Matthew 18:15-20.

 

The Lord has shown us how to deal with such issue.

 

I think leaders of National Council of Churches

 

should do something about it.”

 

Announcements:

 

No 1: There is 1 video each on RC Sproul, George Ong and Joseph Prince.

 

No 2: Don’t miss the many short, crisp and insightful quotes from the 12 Church Fathers:

 

Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, JI Packer, DL Moody, Billy Graham, David Pawson, John MacArthur, James Montgomery Boice & Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

 

No 3: It is strange that Joseph Prince didn’t preach last Sunday.

 

Please see “My Parting Shot to Joseph Prince,”

 

in the last part of this article

 

for this issue and 2 other issues.

 

Another issue:

 

why is Joseph Prince so silent about praying for Israel

 

in his worship services.

 

Excerpt No 1 from the Article:

 

In ‘Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 5,’

 

Martin Luther said:

 

“Those who are not of this sort

 

ought not to count themselves Christians,

 

and they ought not to be comforted,

 

as one comforts Christians,

 

with much talk about the forgiveness of sins

 

and the grace of Christ,

 

as the Antinomians do.

 

For they, rejecting

 

and not understanding the Ten Commandments,

 

preach much about the grace of Christ instead.

 

They strengthen and comfort those who remain in sins,

 

telling them that they shall not fear sins or be terrified at them,

 

since through Christ,

 

these are all done away.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

What Martin Luther described an Antinomian,

 

is exactly who Joseph Prince epitomised.

 

Martin Luther made the point that those Antinomians,

 

such as Joseph Prince,

 

who preached on the forgiveness and the grace of Christ

 

but rejected the Ten Commandments,

 

are not Christians in the first place.

 

If Joseph Prince isn’t a Christian to start with,

 

how can he be preaching the true gospel?

 

And how can those who supposedly accept Christ

 

through Joseph Prince’s grace message

 

be really saved?

 

Excerpt No 2 from the Article:

 

In ‘An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17 – 5:17, Darkness and Light,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“It is one of the most subtle, dangerous heresies

 

that can ever be offered to men and women.

 

… and the argument that the law has got nothing to do with us

 

is a case of the devil appearing as an angel of light.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

What Martyn Lloyd-Jones described

 

is what Joseph Prince has been teaching all along

 

– that New Covenant people have nothing to do with the law.

 

Hence, Joseph Prince is indeed preaching heresy

 

and is representing the devil,

 

who appears as an angel of light.

 

Excerpt No 3 from the Article:

 

In ‘An Expositional Commentary on Romans Volume 1-4.’

 

James Montgomery Boice wrote:

 

“Two studies back,

 

I began to explain the final paragraph

 

of Romans 3 (vv. 27- 31),

 

… “Well, then,” such a person might argue,

 

“if salvation is apart from law, as you say,

 

Doesn’t the doctrine of salvation by grace

 

set God’s law aside

 

and thus, show it to be worthless?”

 

And if it does that,

 

Shouldn’t your gospel be rejected

 

as being quite false?

 

Aren’t we obliged to reject any doctrine

 

that would nullify the revealed law of God?

 

Paul’s reply is that the gospel of grace

 

does not nullify God’s law.

 

God forbid that it should!

 

If it did that,

 

it would be a false gospel,

 

one rightly to be rejected.

 

But it does not nullify the law of God.

 

On the contrary,

 

it establishes the law

 

and is, in fact,

 

the only thing that does or could establish it.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

James Montgomery Boice wrote that

 

grace does not nullify the law of God (Rom 3:27-31).

 

He further wrote that any grace doctrine

 

that nullifies the law of God

 

(which is what Joseph Prince teaches),

 

is a false Gospel and one rightly to be rejected.

 

This proves that Joseph Prince’s gospel of grace

 

that does away with the law,

 

is categorically a false gospel.

 

which does not save.

 

Excerpt No 4 from the Article:

 

Joseph Prince is undoubtedly, a true-blooded Antinomian.

 

But he has the cheek and the shamelessness

 

to deny he is an Antinomian.

 

And for an Antinomian like Joseph Prince

 

to deny he is an Antinomian,

 

just as a thief who denies he is a thief, 

 

is not only a blatant lie

 

but hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

Excerpt No 5 from the Article:

 

In conclusion, let me highlight again

 

the great importance of what Dr Roland Chia wrote.

 

Dr Roland Chia,

 

Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine

 

Trinity Theological College, wrote:

 

“The truth is that Joseph Prince’s doctrines of the Bible (especially the Old Testament),

 

God’s moral laws (especially the Ten Commandments),

 

grace, confession and repentance of sin,

 

healing, salvation, and holy communion

 

lie outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

 

They are antithetical

 

to the teachings of Scripture

 

and the Church throughout the centuries,

 

including the early Church Fathers,

 

the sixteenth century Reformers

 

and contemporary orthodox theologians.

 

Taken as a whole,

 

what Prince presents as sound doctrine

 

is in fact heresy.”

 

For Dr Roland Chia to write that

 

“They (Joseph Prince’s teachings) are antithetical

 

to the teachings of Scripture

 

and the Church throughout the centuries,

 

including the early Church Fathers,

 

the sixteenth century Reformers

 

and contemporary orthodox theologians,”

 

must set the alarm bells ringing.

 

If you have been observant,

 

you would have noticed that

 

this is what I have been trying to do

 

in my many previous articles, and also this article.

 

I have deliberately and relentlessly surfaced

 

how the teachings of Joseph Prince

 

contradict that of the Church Fathers,

 

particularly, those in the Reformation period

 

and the contemporary orthodox theologians.

 

Here, we are not talking about just one of two, or even several,

 

but a whole host of them.

 

And, of course, it goes without saying

 

that the teachings of these Church Fathers

 

are anchored on the scriptures,

 

and they represent a wide spectrum

 

of different theological persuasions.

 

That being the case,

 

anyone, who is theological informed and biblically honest

 

would come to the conclusion,

 

like Dr Roland Chia, myself and many others did,

 

that Joseph Prince is undoubtedly a heretic.

 

Any other verdict

 

would be to go against plain common sense,

 

theological imperatives and sound doctrine.

 

(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.)

 

Please click here

 

to view the entire video.

 

In a Sunday sermon aired on YouTube,

 

18 Feb 2024, 2 Sundays ago, Joseph Prince said;

 

Please click here to view the 1-minute-and-20-second video:

 

“Alright, now, watch this church.

 

What is the greatest commandment?

 

You must love God with all your heart,

 

all your soul, all your mind, all your strength.

 

Now, every time someone tells me that right,

 

I asked the question, have you done it?

 

You know until today, I have not found an answer.

 

Nobody can say yes, I have done it.

 

Now, you say I do my best.

 

The law doesn’t understand that.

 

Okay, sorry, ah.

 

You are a true Antinomian

 

when you bring down the law to your level.

 

A true Antinomian, Antinomos,

 

actually, someone who is against the law.

 

I am not against the law.

 

I am for the law for the reason God gave the law.

 

By the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

I am consistent.

 

I am telling you,

 

if you come under the law in any way,

 

you are under a curse.

 

For as many as are of the works of the law

 

are under the curse.

 

For as many as are of the works.

 

You don’t even have to break it.

 

The moment I say I take my stand on the law,

 

you are under the curse.

 

Because the law, listen carefully,

 

the law curse just one sin, one violation, the law curse.

 

The law does not understand I bend down

 

and understand that you are trying your best.

 

No, you cannot play around with the law.

 

So, the true Antinomians

 

are people who actually preach

 

you can keep the law.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Joseph Prince said:

 

“Alright, now, watch this church.

 

What is the greatest commandment?

 

You must love God with all your heart,

 

all your soul, all your mind, all your strength.

 

Now, every time someone tells me that right,

 

I asked the question, have you done it?

 

You know until today, I have not found an answer.

 

Nobody can say yes, I have done it.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

The above question that Joseph Prince asked 

 

is like him asking a similar question

 

and then providing his own answers,

 

“Is there anyone here who is a perfect husband?

 

Nobody can say he is a perfect husband, right?

 

Since nobody can be a perfect husband,

 

let’s just forget about even trying to be husbands.”

 

This is how Joseph Prince argues nonsensically.

 

Similarly, he is also arguing

 

that since no one can love God perfectly,

 

everyone is now excused from even loving Him

 

by our simple devotions and actions of love.

 

That from henceforth, no one is to love God at all

 

(because he has pronounced it to be under law),

 

just because we cannot love Him

 

with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.    

 

In the same way,

 

just because nobody can be a perfect husband

 

doesn’t that mean every man

 

will have to give up being a husband and forgo marriage.

 

It also doesn’t mean that every man

 

cannot aim towards being a perfect husband?

 

The same goes for loving God with our whole being.

 

More so, we have the Holy Spirit to empower us

 

and the grace of God to strengthen us.

 

It seems that Joseph Prince,

 

who preaches so much

 

about the power of the Holy Spirit

 

and super abounding grace of God

 

in many of his sermons,

 

has suddenly forgotten about them

 

and throw them out the window. 

 

Joseph Prince, what’s happening?

 

“Hey Joe, of course, I know, Lah.

 

You are a master twister of truth

 

Those teachings that flow with your grace doctrine,

 

you straightaway invoke

 

the power of the Holy Spirit and the grace of God.

 

But those that go against your grace doctrine,

 

you just ‘act blur’ and pretend

 

that there is no Holy Spirit

 

and God’s grace to help us.”

 

What is Joseph Prince’s picture of God

 

regarding loving God

 

with all our heart, soul, mind and strength?

 

To him, God is probably a tyrant and a rather ungracious God

 

who would come down hard on him,

 

each time he fails to love God that way.

 

That is why Joseph Prince is so afraid even to try.

 

What is our picture of God?

 

To us, God is our heavenly Father who loves us so much

 

that He would bear with our weaknesses and failures.

 

And each time, we stumbled and failed

 

in our attempts to love Him that way,

 

He is so full of grace and is always there to help us

 

in our attempts to love Him in a deeper way.

 

As long as we are sincere and honest,

 

and aren’t taking Him for a ride,

 

God will not despise our efforts to love Him,

 

and He will help us along the way

 

with the power of His Holy Spirit,

 

and by the strength of His matchless grace.

 

And in our imperfect but sincere attempts

 

to love God that way,

 

He is looking forward to that day of glory

 

when we can love Him perfectly.

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Joseph Prince said:

 

“Now, you say I do my best.

(to love God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength)

 

The law doesn’t understand that.

 

… if you come under the law in any way,

 

you are under a curse.

 

For as many as are of the works of the law

 

are under the curse.

 

… The law does not understand I bend down

 

and understand that you are trying your best.”

 

What Joseph Prince is driving at

 

in this sermon and his other sermons

 

is that we are trying to be saved by the law.

 

(And if we really did,

 

of course, we will come under a curse.)

 

This is his straw man strategy

 

that he keeps using against us

 

– that we obey the law

 

because we are trying to be saved by it.

 

In a teaching session, George Ong said;

 

Please click here to view the 1-minute-45-second video:

 

“Now Joseph Prince uses this deadly strawman strategy

 

to misrepresent our views

 

so that his people

 

have the wrong understanding of our teaching.

 

How he misrepresent our views?

 

He will say something like this:

 

These people, they teach that you must obey the law to be justified.

 

No, no, we never teach that you must obey the law to be justified.

 

And he says, these people they have rejected grace

 

because they say you must obey the law to be saved.

 

We have never done that.

 

You see he uses this strawman strategy to misrepresent,

 

strawman strategy is one where purposely misrepresent, distort our view.

 

Tell me, Joseph Prince,

 

which evangelical church (in Singapore) will preach this,

 

that we are saved by the law?

 

Which evangelical Pastor (in Singapore) will preach

 

that we are justified by the law?

 

He cannot quote me anyone.

 

It’s just his straw man.

 

If any evangelical Pastor or church

 

preached that we are saved by the law,

 

this guy is a heretic.

 

So, what is our position?

 

Our position is that we are not saved by the law.

 

We are not justified by the law.

 

But after we are justified,

 

after we are saved by the righteousness of God in Christ,

 

we must obey the law under sanctification.  

 

I will go on to say,

 

if anybody claims that he is saved,

 

but refuses to obey the law,

 

teaches against it,

 

I don’t think he is saved.

 

So, I say again.

 

We are not saved by the law.

 

But after we are saved,

 

we must obey the law.

 

That’s the position of Reformation fathers

 

and also the evangelical church.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

So, Joseph Prince’s strategy has always been

 

to falsely accuse us of obeying God’s law

 

in order to be saved or justified.

 

Joseph Prince keeps misrepresenting our doctrinal stand

 

time and again by repeating a lie.

 

The lie is, that we are preaching salvation by the law,

 

which is heresy,

 

and hence, we have rejected God’s way of being saved by grace.

 

He does that so he can tarnish our credibility

 

in our criticism against his grace theology,

 

and to poison his members

 

with this so-called false theology

 

of being saved by law of ours.  

 

We did say we must obey God’s laws,

 

but we have never said that we are doing it to be saved

 

or be justified by the law.

 

We obey God’s laws not to be justified

 

but because we are justified.

 

We obey God’s laws,

 

not as part of justification but as part of sanctification.

 

We believe that every true believer, after they get saved,

 

must obey God’s laws as part of sanctification,

 

or, his faith is suspect.

 

So, you have to be aware that Joseph Prince’s strategy has always been

 

to falsely accuse us of obeying the law under justification

 

when he perfectly knows we are legitimately doing it under sanctification.

 

That’s the lethalness of his crafty strategy

 

– to twist our obedience to the law

 

from the basis of sanctification to that of justification.

 

Hence, I hope you are now being made aware

 

of Joseph Prince’s deadly strategy

 

that he constantly employs against us,

 

so you will not be deceived the next time

 

when you stumble upon such arguments of Joseph Prince

 

in his books or his sermons.

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Joseph Prince said:

 

“Okay, sorry, ah.

 

You are a true Antinomian

 

when you bring down the law to your level.

 

A true Antinomian, Antinomos,

 

actually, someone who is against the law.

 

I am not against the law.

 

I am for the law for the reason God gave the law.

 

By the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

… So, the true Antinomians

 

are people who actually preach

 

you can keep the law.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Joseph Prince is again telling a half-truth.

 

It is true that he is not against the law

 

from the viewpoint of justification.

 

But he is definitely against the law

 

from the viewpoint of sanctification.

 

And that’s what makes him an Antinomian.

 

Joseph Prince has to be against it

 

as he doesn’t even believe in sanctification

 

– though he lied that he believed in progressive sanctification

 

and even put up the doctrine of progressive sanctification

 

on his church’s website.

 

As for the details, please see the Article,

 

Joseph Prince went for Botox or Supplements? & his Minus Sanctification Salvation Heresy! – By Rev George Ong (Dated 8 Feb 2024),

 

by clicking on the link below,

 

https://www.revgeorgeong.com/rev-george-ong-joseph-prince-went-for-botox-or-supplements-his-minus-sanctification-salvation-heresy/

 

So, in theory,

 

Joseph Prince said he believes in Progressive Sanctification (he lied),

 

but in practice, he doesn’t,

 

and he is treating sanctification

 

in much the same way as justification. 

 

But what cannot be stomached is that

 

Joseph Prince has committed 2 misdemeanours

 

First, Joseph Prince lied that

 

since he isn’t against the law

 

(which he is, under sanctification),

 

by extension, he isn’t an Antinomian,

 

when he said:

 

“A true Antinomian, Antinomos,

 

actually, someone who is against the law.

 

I am not against the law.”

 

Second, Joseph Prince falsely accused

 

12 Church Fathers (and every Church Father)

 

of being Antinomians

 

when he said:

 

“… So, the true Antinomians

 

are people who actually preach

 

you can keep the law.”

 

As I shall unfold to you, these 12 Church Fathers

 

all believed and taught that we must keep or obey the law

 

not from the viewpoint of justification (which would be heresy),

 

but from the viewpoint of sanctification (which is orthodoxy).   

 

When I mentioned these 12 Church Fathers,

 

they are effectively representative of all Church Fathers.

 

1. Joseph Prince lied that he isn’t against the law; hence, he isn’t an Antinomian.

 

Martin Luther coined the term Antinomianism

 

to describe those who teach that

 

since salvation is a free gift of God’s grace,

 

obeying God is unimportant, and particularly,

 

the need to obey God’s moral laws

 

in the Ten Commandments is abrogated.

 

Luther called them Antinomians:

 

anti means against, and nomos means law.

 

So, this means Antinomians are against all laws,

 

including the moral laws in the Ten Commandments of God.

 

A simple definition of Antinomian

 

is a person who believes that Christians are released by grace

 

from the obligation of observing God’s moral laws.

 

That aptly describes what Joseph Prince is teaching

 

– if you read his books and follow his teachings,

 

his passionate pursuit is to teach that New Covenant believers

 

are no longer required

 

to obey the moral laws in the Ten Commandments of God

 

because they have become obsolete.

 

To put it starkly, what Joseph Prince teaches,

 

is in essence, Antinomianism, pure and simple!

 

The heresy of Antinomianism,

 

which Luther fought against in his day,

 

has continued and survived today in many forms

 

and especially in the teachings of Joseph Prince.

 

Joseph Prince is indeed a true-blooded Antinomian.

 

But in his recent sermon on 18 Feb 2024, 2 Sundays ago,

 

and on several occasions in his other sermons and books,

 

he has openly denied that he is an Antinomian.

 

In ‘Destined To Reign’, Joseph Prince wrote:

 

“One of the things which I have been accused of 

 

is being an antinomian (someone who is against the law of Moses).”

 

How could Joseph Prince ever deny that?

 

How could Joseph Prince, who is an Antinomian,

 

and who teaches Antinomianism in broad daylight,

 

deny that he is an Antinomian?

 

This is absolutely repulsive and grossly revolting!

 

It is like a thief who keeps denying he is a thief

 

when he is being caught time and again for the act of stealing.

 

What defines a thief is the act of stealing. 

 

In the same way, what defines an Antinomian at its core

 

is the teaching that the moral law in the Ten Commandments

 

is no longer relevant to New Covenant believers

 

by virtue of grace

 

– and that’s the core of Joseph Prince’s grace teachings.

 

RC Sproul, an experienced theologian,

 

has accurately described what constitutes

 

an Antinomian and Antinomianism.

 

In a sermon, RC Sproul said;

 

Please click here to view the 15-second video:

 

“Because we’re living in a time

 

– since the Reformation

 

– unprecedented Antinomianism,

 

the idea that the law of God,

 

particularly the moral law of God in the Old Testament

 

has no relevance whatsoever

 

for the New Testament Christian.”

 

What RC Sproul described about Antinomianism

 

is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.

 

Joseph Prince is undoubtedly, a true-blooded Antinomian.

 

But he has the cheek and the shamelessness

 

to deny he is an Antinomian.

 

And for an Antinomian like Joseph Prince

 

to deny he is an Antinomian,

 

just as a thief who denies he is a thief, 

 

is not only a blatant lie

 

but hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

How could Joseph Prince ever deny he is an Antinomian

 

when it is so patently obvious 

 

that the core of what he teaches

 

is pure and unadulterated Antinomianism

 

– that New Covenant believers

 

are no longer required to obey the moral law of God

 

in the Ten Commandments

 

as they have become obsolete.

 

Joseph Prince has absolutely no ground

 

to deny that he is an Antinomian,

 

as the freedom from the moral law of God (Ten Commandments)

 

for New Covenant believers by virtue of grace,

 

is what he is constantly crusading for,

 

which is the core definition of what an Antinomian is.

 

Let me surface the writings of 3 Church Fathers,

 

Martin Luther, John Wesley and Martyn Lloyd-Jones

 

to prove to you that Joseph Prince is an Antinomian.

 

In ‘Works of Martin Luther, Vol. 5,’

 

Martin Luther said:

 

“Those who are not of this sort

 

ought not to count themselves Christians,

 

and they ought not to be comforted,

 

as one comforts Christians,

 

with much talk about the forgiveness of sins

 

and the grace of Christ,

 

as the Antinomians do.

 

For they, rejecting

 

and not understanding the Ten Commandments,

 

preach much about the grace of Christ instead.

 

They strengthen and comfort those who remain in sins,

 

telling them that they shall not fear sins or be terrified at them,

 

since through Christ,

 

these are all done away.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

What Martin Luther described an Antinomian,

 

is exactly who Joseph Prince epitomised.

 

Martin Luther made the point that those Antinomians,

 

such as Joseph Prince,

 

who preached on the forgiveness and the grace of Christ

 

but rejected the Ten Commandments,

 

are not Christians in the first place.

 

If Joseph Prince isn’t a Christian to start with,

 

how can he be preaching the true gospel?

 

And how can those who supposedly accept Christ

 

through Joseph Prince’s grace message

 

be really saved?

 

In ‘Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 4,

 

Martin Luther said:

 

“Hence those foolish souls (Antinomians)

 

are entirely wrong,

 

who allege that the Law is not to be preached

 

under the New Testament dispensation…”

 

… But besides, we must bear in mind

 

that the doctrine of the Law

 

is not to be entirely done away with,

 

even in the case of those who are Christians,

 

… In the next place,

 

when we have received such grace and salvation,

 

have been baptized into Christ and believe,

 

his will is that we should afterwards live accordingly,

 

obey God and do what is commanded of us

 

in the Ten Commandments…”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Joseph Prince teaches his Antinomian doctrine

 

that New Covenant believers have nothing to do

 

with the moral law in the Ten Commandments,

 

whereas Martin Luther states that

 

the law in the Ten Commandments

 

have everything to do with us,

 

in that, we are required to obey them

 

after we become believers. 

 

In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters,

 

John Wesley wrote:

 

“Q. 18. Have we not also leaned towards Antinomianism?

 

A. We are afraid we have.

 

Q. 19. What is Antinomianism?

 

A. The doctrine which makes void the law through faith.

 

Q. 20. What are the main pillars hereof?

 

A.

 

(1.) That Christ abolished the moral law.

 

(2.) That therefore Christians are not obliged to observe it.

 

(3.) That one branch of Christian liberty is, liberty from obeying the commandments of God.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

What John Wesley had described

 

about what constitutes Antinomianism

 

is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.

 

Joseph Prince’s core teaching is that

 

with the dawning of grace,

 

the Ten Commandments have been annulled,

 

and are no longer binding on New Covenant believers.

 

Hence, Joseph Prince can never deny

 

that he is an Antinomian,

 

which he shamelessly tried and lied,

 

when John Wesley has clearly described

 

the core of what Antinomianism is,

 

and the core Antinomian teachings of Joseph Prince

 

fit the bill entirely.    

 

In ‘An exposition of Ephesians 6:10-13, The Christian Warfare,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“One extreme in this particular realm

 

is that which is commonly known as antinomianism,

 

which, according to the word’s literal meaning,

 

signifies opposition to the whole notion of law.

 

It virtually claims that our conduct and practice

 

are not related to the law of God.

 

It argues thus:

 

‘The Old Testament was concerned about morality, ethics, conduct, behaviour.

 

That was the law.

 

But under the Gospel, the situation is quite different.

 

The Gospel delivers us from law and sets us free.

 

The Christian is no longer under the law; he is a free man.’

 

The devil comes to a man who has seen this ‘truth’,

 

and presses him to such an extreme

 

that he becomes an antinomian…”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Because Joseph Prince refuses to see the truth,

 

he is now in the devil’s camp,

 

preaching the Antinomian heresies about God’s law.

 

So, from the writings of Martin Luther, John Wesley and Martyn Lloyd-Jones,

 

who wrote about what constitutes an Antinomian and Antinomianism

 

which they were sorely against,

 

Joseph Prince is undoubtedly an Antinomian.

 

2. Joseph Prince falsely accused 12 Church Fathers (and every Church Father) of being Antinomians

 

when he said:

 

“… So, the true Antinomians are people

 

who actually preach, you can keep the law.”

 

I will unfold 12 Church Fathers,

 

Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Arthur Pink, JI Packer, DL Moody, Billy Graham, David Pawson, John MacArthur, James Montgomery Boice, Martyn Lloyd-Jones,

 

who preach that believers must keep the law

 

as part of sanctification,

 

but they are not Antinomians

 

that Joseph Prince falsely accused them.

 

In ‘Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1, Sermons on Gospel Texts, for Advent, Christmas & Epiphany,’

 

Martin Luther said:

 

“Whosoever now believes the Gospel

 

will receive grace and the Holy Spirit.

 

This will cause the heart to rejoice

 

and find delight in God,

 

and will enable the believer

 

to keep the law cheerfully…”

 

In ‘Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1, Sermons on Gospel Texts, for Advent, Christmas & Epiphany,’

 

Martin Luther said:

 

“Romans 8:24: “In hope were ye saved,” for ye are Jesuses or Saviors.

 

Behold, there is therefore no measure

 

to the dignity and honor of a Christian!

 

These are the super abundant riches of his goodness,

 

which he pours out upon us,

 

so that our heart may be free,

 

joyous, peaceable, and unterrified;

 

and willingly and cheerfully keep the law.”

 

In ‘Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 277,’

 

John Calvin wrote:

 

“We must not imagine that the coming of Christ

 

has freed us from the authority of the law, 

 

for it is the eternal rule 

 

of a devout and holy life,

 

and must, therefore, be as unchangeable…” 

 

In ‘The John Calvin Collection, 12 Classic Works,’

 

John Calvin wrote:

 

“The law contributes

 

not only to the beginning of repentance,

 

but also to our continuing perseverance [in the Christian life].

 

In ‘the Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 6, Sermons on Several Occasions (1810), pp. 75-76,’

 

John Wesley wrote:

 

“‘Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil’” [Matthew 5:17] …

 

The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel,

 

containing all the injunctions and ordinances

 

which related to the old sacrifices and service of the temple,

 

our Lord indeed did come

 

to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish…

 

But the moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments,

 

and enforced by the prophets, 

 

He did not take away.

 

It was not the design of His coming

 

to revoke any part of this.

 

This is a law which never can be broken,

 

which stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven.” 

 

In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes, Volume 1: Sermons 1-200,’

 

Charles Spurgeon said:

 

“I will put my laws into their mind,

 

and write them in their hearts.” (Heb 8:10)

 

O you poor sinners,

 

I may exhort you to keep the law;

 

but, without the Spirit of God working within you,

 

nothing will come of it!

 

But if God puts his law into your hearts,

 

then you will keep it.”

 

In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes, Volume 1: Sermons 1-200,’

 

Charles Spurgeon said:

 

“We become Christians with our own full assent and consent;

 

and we keep the law of God

 

not by any compulsion

 

except the sweet compulsion of love.

 

We do not keep it because we cannot do otherwise,

 

but we keep it because we would not do otherwise,

 

because we have come to delight therein,

 

and this seems to me the greatest wonder of divine grace.”

 

In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes, Volume 1: Sermons 1-200,’

 

Charles Spurgeon said:

 

“The saint can say, “O how I love thy law!”

 

If we cannot say so, something is wrong with us.

 

… If God’s commands are grievous to you,

 

then you are a rebel at heart.

 

Loyal subjects delight in the royal law.

 

“His commandments are not grievous.”” (1 Jn 5:3)

 

In ‘The Law and the Saint,’

 

Arthur Pink wrote:

 

“When, then, our Lord said

 

that He had not come to destroy the Law,

 

He gave us to understand

 

that it was not the purpose of His mission

 

to repeal or annul the Ten Commandments:

 

that he had not come to free men

 

from their obligations to them.

 

… He expressly affirmed,

 

“Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.”

 

In these words, He announces the perpetuity of the Law.

 

So long as heaven and earth shall last,

 

the Law will endure,

 

and by necessary implication,

 

the lasting obligations of all men to fulfill it.”

 

In ‘The Law and the Saint,’

 

Arthur Pink wrote:

 

“Ye are not under the Law but under grace”. (Rom 6:14)

 

… “Not under the Law”

 

does not mean,

 

not under obligation

 

to obey the precepts of the moral Law;

 

but signifies,

 

not keeping the Law in order to be saved.”

 

In ‘1 John 1:1 – 3:1, An Exposition of the First Epistle of John, (1886-1952),’

 

Arthur Pink wrote:

 

“The soundness of our knowledge

 

is to be gauged by the obedience which it produces.

 

“He that saith, I know him,

 

and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar,

 

and the truth is not in him” (verse 4).

 

In those words, the apostle

 

declares that any knowledge of God

 

which issues not in obedience to Him

 

is worthless,

 

and that the lawless one

 

affirming a saving acquaintance with God

 

is a deceiver.

 

… John was also refuting the error of Antinomians,

 

who, under the guise of magnifying divine grace,

 

set aside the Law as the believer’s rule of conduct.”

 

In ‘Knowing God,’

 

JI Packer wrote:

 

“It is this: that,

 

while it is certainly true that justification frees one forever

 

from the need to keep the law,

 

or try to, as the means of earning life,

 

it is equally true that adoption

 

lays on one the abiding obligation to keep the law,

 

as the means of pleasing one’s newfound Father.

 

… Adoption puts law-keeping on a new footing:

 

as children of God,

 

we acknowledge the law’s authority as a rule for our lives,

 

because we know that this is what our Father wants.”

 

In ‘JI Packer Library,’

 

JI Packer wrote:

 

“Though we are not under the law

 

as a system of salvation,

 

we are divinely directed to keep it,

 

according to Christ’s exposition of it,

 

as the rule for our lives (1 Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2).”

 

In ‘JI Packer Library,’

 

JI Packer wrote:

 

“The moral law for Christians,

 

the law of God’s present kingdom,

 

is the law found in the Ten Commandments

 

and the prophets,

 

now applied to the new situation.

 

Jesus has not abolished that law

 

but has merely filled out its meaning (Matthew 5:17-48).”

 

In ‘The Collected Works of D. L. Moody,’

 

DL Moody wrote:

 

“Some people seem to think

 

we have got beyond the commandments.

 

What did Christ say?

 

“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)

 

The commandments of God

 

given to Moses in the Mount at Horeb

 

are as binding today

 

as ever they have been

 

since the time they were proclaimed

 

in the hearing of the people.

 

… Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets,

 

but He did condemn those who did not obey them.

 

Because He gave new commandments,

 

it does not follow that He abolished the old.

 

… The people must be made to understand

 

that the Ten Commandments are still binding,

 

and that there is a penalty attached to their violation.

 

… Paul said:

 

“Do we then make void the Law through faith?

 

God forbid: yea, we establish the Law.” (Romans 3:31)

 

It still holds good.

 

The Commandments are necessary.”

 

In ‘Answers to Life’s Problems,’

 

Billy Graham wrote:

 

“The Ten Commandments are just as valid today

 

as they were when God gave them to Moses.

 

They reflect the moral character of God,

 

and they also provide

 

the foundation of right living with others.

 

God’s character does not change,

 

and neither does His moral will for us.

 

You will find that the New Testament

 

has much to say about these commandments.”

 

In two sermons regarding Hebrews 8:8-12,

 

David Pawson said:

 

“And I’ll write my laws in your heart,

 

and you will want to do them.

 

It won’t be a different law.

 

It will still be the Ten Commandments. 

 

It will still be the old law,

 

but I will write it in your heart

 

and you will want to keep it.

 

… The cross hasn’t wiped out the commandments.

 

It has written them into peoples’ hearts.

 

The cross, in a certain sense

 

has not rendered commandments obsolete,

 

it has fulfilled them.”

 

In one of John MacArthur’s sermons, and commenting on Hebrews 8:13,

 

John MacArthur said:

 

“The moral law of God will never be obsolete…

 

because the moral law of God

 

is simply a reflection of His nature.

 

And He is immutable and unchanging

 

and His nature’s always the same.

 

It is important to understand

 

that the law of God never passes away.

 

It is critical for us to know the law of God

 

and to obey it.”

 

In ‘Exposition of Romans Chapter 2:1-3:20, The Righteous Judgment of God,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“In chapter 2:4 he is even stronger:

 

‘He that saith, I know him,

 

and keepeth not his commandments,

 

is a liar,

 

and the truth is not in him’

 

– one of the strongest statements in the whole of Scripture.

 

That is how the Apostle John preached sanctification, you see.

 

He did not appeal to people to accept something

 

which could be given as a gift;

 

he said,

 

‘If you say that you know Him,

 

and do not keep His commandments,

 

I have only one thing to say to you

 

– you are a liar, and there is no truth in you’.

 

In other words,

 

the New Testament Scriptures teach us everywhere

 

that no greater danger confronts anyone

 

who makes a profession of the Christian faith,

 

than what is called antinomianism.

 

And what does that mean?

 

… It is the tendency to say,

 

‘Well, of course, as long as I am saved

 

it does not matter what I do!’

 

Antinomianism.

 

Anti-law; anti the whole conception of commandments

 

and doing the will of God…”

 

In ‘Studies in the Sermon on the Mount,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“In the same way, people have a false view of grace.

 

They think that grace is apart from law

 

and has nothing to do with it.

 

That is what is called antinomianism…

 

… That is an absolutely wrong and false view of grace.

 

The whole purpose of grace, in a sense,

 

is just to enable us to keep the law.

 

Let me put it in this way.

 

The trouble with us is that we so often

 

have a wrong view of holiness at this point.

 

There is nothing more fatal

 

than to regard holiness and sanctification

 

as experiences to be received.

 

No; holiness means being righteous,

 

and being righteous means keeping the law.

 

Therefore, if your so-called grace (which you say you have received)

 

does not make you keep the law,

 

you have not received grace.

 

You may have received a psychological experience,

 

but you have never received the grace of God.

 

What is grace?

 

It is that marvellous gift of God which,

 

having delivered a man from the curse of the law,

 

enables him to keep it

 

and to be righteous as Christ was righteous,

 

for He kept the law perfectly.

 

Grace is that which brings me to love God;

 

and if I love God,

 

I long to keep His commandments.

 

‘He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them,’

 

Christ said, ‘he it is that loveth me.’

 

We must never separate these two things.

 

Grace is not sentimental;

 

holiness is not an experience.

 

We must have this new mind and disposition

 

which leads us to love the law

 

and to desire to keep it;

 

and by His power

 

He enables us to fulfil the law.

 

That is why our Lord goes on to say in verse 19,

 

`Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.’

 

That was not spoken only to the disciples

 

for the three short years they were to be with Christ

 

until He died;

 

it is permanent and everlasting.

 

He enforces it again in Matthew vii, where He says,

 

`Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’

 

What is the will of the Father?

 

The Ten Commandments and the moral law.

 

They have never been abrogated.”

 

In ‘Exposition of Romans Chapter 12, Christian Conduct,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“Then the fourth danger is that of the people

 

who have not heeded this injunction at all.

 

It is the danger of antinomianism,

 

which, as we have seen,

 

is the view that Christians do not need to obey moral laws,

 

and I think there is a great deal of this at the present time.

 

In ‘An Exposition of Ephesians 5:18-6:9, Life in the Spirit,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“Any position which says ‘law only’ or which says ‘grace only’

 

is of necessity wrong,

 

because in the Bible you have ‘law’ and ‘grace’.

 

It is not ‘law or grace’,

 

it is ‘law and grace’.

 

There was grace in the Old Testament Law.

 

All the burnt offerings and sacrifices are indicative of that.

 

It was God who ordered them.

 

Let no one ever say that there was no grace in the Law of God

 

as given to Moses and the children of Israel.

 

It is ultimately based on grace, it is Law with grace in it.

 

And on the other hand,

 

we must never say that grace means lawlessness;

 

that is Antinomianism,

 

which is everywhere condemned in the New Testament.

 

… It is a tragic fallacy to think that when you have grace

 

there is no element of law at all,

 

but that it is a kind of licence.

 

That is a contradiction of the biblical teaching

 

concerning both law and grace.

 

There is grace in law, there is law in grace.

 

We are not ‘without law’ as Christians, says Paul,

 

‘but we are under law to Christ’ (1 Corinthians 9:21).

 

… I assert, therefore, that this modern idea

 

completely misunderstands both law and grace.

 

It is a complete muddle,

 

it is utter confusion;

 

indeed, it is not biblical at all.”

 

In ‘An Exposition of Ephesians 4:17 – 5:17, Darkness and Light,’

 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:

 

“There are people who will argue,

 

‘But wait a minute;

 

are you not preaching the law to us?

 

You are to be a minister of grace,

 

and yet you seem to be preaching pure law.

 

You are reminding us of the Being and the character of God,

 

as expressed in the Ten Commandments and in His moral law;

 

are you not just putting us back under the law?

 

… all we are asked to do as Christians

 

is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

We could not be saved under the law,

 

for the law made it impossible, saying,

 

“There is none righteous, no, not one.”

 

But now God has brought in another way

 

which makes it easier for us;

 

we are no longer confronted by the demands of the law

 

and the tremendous holiness of God.

 

It is just a matter of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ,

 

and we shall be saved.’

 

Now that is their argument,

 

but I am bound to say that

 

it is one of the most subtle, dangerous heresies

 

that can ever be offered to men and women.

 

… The answer to all this is perfectly clear in the New Testament itself.

 

Christ is God, and He did not come into this world to change God’s law;

 

He Himself says specifically in the Sermon on the Mount

 

that not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away

 

until all be fulfilled.

 

He did not come to destroy the law or the prophets,

 

but to fulfil them.

 

… and the argument that the law has got nothing to do with us

 

is a case of the devil appearing as an angel of light.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

Let me quote what Martyn Lloyd Jones said:

 

“it is one of the most subtle, dangerous heresies

 

that can ever be offered to men and women.

 

… and the argument that the law has got nothing to do with us

 

is a case of the devil appearing as an angel of light.”

 

What Martyn Lloyd-Jones described

 

is what Joseph Prince has been teaching all along

 

– that New Covenant people have nothing to do with the law.

 

Hence, Joseph Prince is indeed preaching heresy

 

and is representing the devil,

 

who appears as an angel of light.

 

In ‘An Expositional Commentary on Romans Volume 1-4.’

 

James Montgomery Boice wrote:

 

“Two studies back,

 

I began to explain the final paragraph

 

of Romans 3 (vv. 27- 31),

 

… “Well, then,” such a person might argue,

 

“if salvation is apart from law, as you say,

 

Doesn’t the doctrine of salvation by grace

 

set God’s law aside

 

and thus, show it to be worthless?”

 

And if it does that,

 

Shouldn’t your gospel be rejected as being quite false?

 

Aren’t we obliged to reject any doctrine

 

that would nullify the revealed law of God?

 

Paul’s reply is that the gospel of grace

 

does not nullify God’s law.

 

God forbid that it should!

 

If it did that,

 

it would be a false gospel,

 

one rightly to be rejected.

 

But it does not nullify the law of God.

 

On the contrary,

 

it establishes the law

 

and is, in fact,

 

the only thing that does or could establish it.”

 

George Ong’s comments:

 

James Montgomery Boice wrote that

 

grace does not nullify the law of God (Rom 3:27-31).

 

He further wrote that any grace doctrine

 

that nullifies the law of God

 

(which is what Joseph Prince teaches),

 

is a false Gospel and one rightly to be rejected.

 

This proves that Joseph Prince’s gospel of grace

 

that does away with the law,

 

is categorically a false gospel.

 

which does not save.

 

In conclusion, let me highlight again

 

the great importance of what Dr Roland Chia wrote.

 

Dr Roland Chia,

 

Chew Hock Hin Professor of Christian Doctrine

 

Trinity Theological College, wrote:

 

“The truth is that Joseph Prince’s doctrines of the Bible (especially the Old Testament),

 

God’s moral laws (especially the Ten Commandments),

 

grace, confession and repentance of sin,

 

healing, salvation, and holy communion

 

lie outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

 

They are antithetical

 

to the teachings of Scripture

 

and the Church throughout the centuries,

 

including the early Church Fathers,

 

the sixteenth century Reformers

 

and contemporary orthodox theologians.

 

Taken as a whole,

 

what Prince presents as sound doctrine

 

is in fact heresy.”

 

For Dr Roland Chia to write,

 

“They (Joseph Prince’s teachings) are antithetical

 

to the teachings of Scripture

 

and the Church throughout the centuries,

 

including the early Church Fathers,

 

the sixteenth century Reformers

 

and contemporary orthodox theologians,”

 

must set the alarm bells ringing.

 

If you have been observant,

 

you would have noticed that

 

this is what I have been trying to do

 

in my many previous articles, and also this article.

 

I have deliberately and relentlessly surfaced

 

how the teachings of Joseph Prince

 

contradict that of the Church Fathers,

 

particularly, those in the Reformation period

 

and the contemporary orthodox theologians.

 

Here, we are not talking about just one of two or even several,

 

but a whole host of them.

 

And, of course, it goes without saying

 

that the teachings of these Church Fathers

 

are anchored on the scriptures,

 

and they represent a broad spectrum

 

of different theological persuasions.

 

That being the case,

 

anyone who is theological informed and biblically honest

 

would come to the conclusion,

 

like Dr Roland Chia, myself and many others did,

 

that Joseph Prince is undoubtedly a heretic.

 

Any other verdict

 

would be to go against plain common sense,

 

theological imperatives and sound doctrine.

 

My Parting Shot to Joseph Prince:

 

“Hey Joe,

 

There are 3 things I want to talk to you.

 

First, I noticed you no preach last Sunday, 25 Feb.

 

Quite strange, Leh.

 

You no preach for 2 Sundays on 4 & 11 Feb.

 

Then you preach 18 Feb.

 

But last Sunday, 25 Feb, you nowhere to be found.

 

What happened?

 

Sick or what?

 

If you sick, you sure keep top secret, one.

 

How can you who preach perfect health be sick?

 

Or, is it you can’t take pressure from Mr Pen,

 

in his articles, one by one shoot against you, last week,

 

that you need one solid week of Sabbath to recover.

 

But to be expected, Lah,

 

you may come up with your own so-called reason,

 

why you absent last Sunday on 25 Feb

 

if you preach on 3 Mar, this coming Sunday.

 

Second, I have chased you to name

 

which church fathers support your grace doctrine,

 

for example, your long life and good looks

 

through Holy Communion,

 

or your when your people sin, no need to confess sins, etc, etc.

 

Up till today, you have not named a single church father who support you.

 

Or which Singapore Pastor or Church

 

support your ‘Tien ah’ mocking God doctrine.

 

Or no need to love God with all your heart doctrine.

 

because you passed a law against it.

 

You say it’s law to love God,

 

and loving God is under Old Covenant.

 

Ah, so which Church Fathers support all these doctrines?

 

I ask again,

 

which Church Father back you up on all these doctrines?

 

Why you so silent?

 

Dumb, is it?

 

You too proud to admit

 

no Church Father would support all your rubbish teachings.

 

But I have shown you so many Church Fathers

 

that teach against your doctrine

 

in so many of my previous articles.

 

Also, in this article – 12 Church Fathers.

 

Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, etc.

 

So, what say you now?

 

Nothing to say, right?

 

Guilty, right?

 

Hey Joe,

 

say something against Dr Roland Chia, Leh.

 

He said many damaging things against you, you know.

 

Why your mouth stuck with something or what?

 

Why you don’t talk?

 

Scared of him, ah.

 

Don