Title: Joseph Prince, the Lone Ranger Antinomian, whose law doctrine, is refuted by 27 top leaders of the Church:


John Stott, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon, DL Moody, Andrew Murray, Charles Finney, AW Tozer, JI Packer, Billy Graham, John Piper, David Pawson, DA Carson, John MacArthur, George Whitefield, Reinhard Bonnke, James Montgomery Boice, JC Ryle, RA Torrey, Paris Reidhead, Robert Bolton, Walter Chantry,

Robbie Flockhart & RC Sproul.


Co-title: Joseph Prince falsely accuses 27 top Bible teachers and leaders for leading people into sin.


– By Rev George Ong (Dated 13 Sep 2023)


1. Next Article: My reply to Joseph Prince


This is getting interesting.


Joseph Prince paid me another compliment by replying to me again


in his latest sermon, 3 days ago, on 10 Sep 2023.


I must thank him for the free publicity that he bestows on me,


and I would be pleased to give him my reply.


Please watch out for the next article in my reply to him.


This would be slated for release


either by the end of this week or the beginning of next week.


2. Points about this Article


This lengthy article cannot be read in one but a few sittings.


You don’t have to read everything


but for those who are passionate about this topic,


especially Pastors and Leaders, it will be a great treat.


Let me be frank that for you


to assemble such massive resources


about what these 27 Christian Bible teachers and leaders


have commented on the said issue,


would be a near impossible task.


Thank God for helping me to pull off this feat.


My main purpose of assembling such massive resources


is to give a knockout blow to Joseph Prince


– that if all 27 Christian Bible teachers and leaders,


from different theological backgrounds and doctrinal persuasions,


have refuted his Antinomian teachings,


Prince has zero chance to be right on this issue.  


3. An Excerpt taken from the Article


Joseph Prince had shamelessly lied more than once


that he is not an Antinomian.


But RC Sproul, an experienced theologian,


has described, in a video, what constitutes


an Antinomian and Antinomianism.


RC Sproul said:


“Antinomianism is 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.”


This is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.


Never believe the lies of Joseph Prince.


He is, undoubtedly, an Antinomian.


Antinomianism is a heresy that Martin Luther himself


coined and fought against during the Reformation.


(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 weekly Sunday sermon aired on YouTube


on 10 Sep 2023, 3 days ago, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 5-second video:


“But today


we are not under the law…” (Rom 6:14)


George Ong’s comments:


Joseph Prince’s statement,


‘we are not under the law’ in Romans 6:14,


would be answered and elaborated


by the many Christian Bible teachers and leaders


in the article.


In another sermon, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 10-second video:


“So, those who advocate,


Yes, we must try our best to keep the law


is actually bringing people right into sin.”


George Ong’s comments:


Joseph Prince made a blasphemous statement


when he said that those who advocate


the keeping of the law,


is actually bringing people right into sin.


On the contrary,


those who advocate the keeping of the law


are those who honour God and His attributes


as the moral law is a reflection of His character.


So, how could someone who is brought closer to the law


which is a reflection of God’s character be sinning?


In yet another sermon, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 25-second video:


“Have you noticed the Holy Spirit


never helps people to memorise the Ten Commandments?


Have you noticed that?


Those who fight for the Ten Commandments,


you ask them, what’s the third commandment, bro?


Ammm, Ummm.


What’s the fifth?




What’s the sixth?




So much for fighting for the Ten Commandments.


They don’t even memorise it.”


George Ong’s comments:


Joseph Prince


made a sweeping and blasphemous statement


that the Holy Spirit will never help believers


to memorise the Ten Commandments?


How does he know?


Has he met these people?


Assuming that there are people


whom Joseph Prince have met


who advocate the law but don’t memorise it,


how does he know that the Holy Spirit is the one


who does not want to help them to memorise it?


Is he again going to tell us the sickening rubbish


that God spoke to Him and that he has a hotline to God?


It is so obvious that Joseph Prince


is making up his own story about the issue.


And even if he had met 10 of such people, so what?


Is that enough for him


to make the sweeping and blasphemous statement


that the Holy Spirit will never help believers


to memorise the Ten Commandments?


And by the way, Reinhard Bonkke


who is featured in this article,


proved Joseph Prince wrong


when he said:


“I had memorized the Ten Commandments.


I knew them by heart.”


In ‘Destined To Reign,’ Joseph Prince wrote:


“In other words,


with the advent of the new covenant of grace,


the Ten Commandments have been made obsolete.”


In a sermon, DA Carson said;


Please click here to view the 1-and-a-half-minute video:


“But that actually raises the question


what is the relationship


between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant?


And clearly, there are lines of continuity


between the two.


For example, you do not find that Paul says anywhere,


‘Well, the Old Covenant specified you shall not commit adultery,


but I say to you, you’ll free from the law, oh happy condition,


and now you can sleep with anybody you like.’


He (Paul) has many restrictions regarding sexual immorality.


And thus, there are commonalities of restraint, of warning, of threat.


In fact, probing deeper analysis of the nature of sin


under the New Covenant that align with the Old.


In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says,


‘Do not think I have come to destroy the Law or the prophets.


I have not come to destroy, but to… and that’s the rub, but to fulfil.’


Not simply to maintain, or to keep, or to preserve, but to fulfil.


So, insofar as Christians are obligated to obey the New Covenant,


and the New Covenant is the fulfilment of the Ten Commandments,


amongst other things,


then insofar as we are obeying their proper fulfilment


under the terms of the New Covenant,


in one sense, we are obeying the Ten Commandments.  


Now, if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty,


then, of course, you’re supposed to honour your father and your mother,


and of course, you’re supposed to avoid covetousness and so on and so on.


In one fashion or another,


you could show kinds of continuity


from the Old Covenant, Ten Commandments,


to what is morally mandated by Christ Jesus.” 


In a sermon, RC Sproul said;


Please click here to view the 2-and-a-half-minute video:


“The distinction in view here is there are laws


that God gives in the Old Testament and in the New


that are an expression


of His own character that is immutable.


So, that if we set them aside or He set them aside,


that would be doing violence to His own character.


For example, if God would say,


‘Now, in the New Covenant, it’s okay to worship idols.’


God would be denying His own deity and supremacy at that point.


Now, this is a question that I don’t think would be a mistake


for us to talk about the rest of the time here


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.


And I remembered making a statement years ago


of those who say that the moral law of the Old Testament


has no relevance to the New Testament Christian


is Antinomianism.


I got a letter from a professor at a seminary;


he had his PhD in biblical studies and he said to me,


‘Why are you calling us Antinomians?


We’re not Antinomians


because we believe in the commandments of Christ.


We don’t believe that the Old Testament laws


relevant to us but the New Testament law is.’


I said what you now are articulating to me


is the classic example and definition of Antinomianism


because what Antinomianism refers to


is the Old Testament Law and its relevance to us today.


And the Christian ought to be able to say with the Psalmist,


‘Oh, how I love your law.’


Because, you know, we make a distinction


between the word of God and the law of God,


but God’s word is His law and His law is His word.


And that moral law (Ten Commandments)


is something that the church


needs to hold with great precision and care.


It’s what Luther – I mean what Calvin


called the third use of the law. 


God’s revelation of what is pleasing to Him from His people.       


We recite the Ten Commandments or part of the Ten Commandments


every Sunday at St Andrews.


We preach the law


so that people can be pushed to the gospel.”


George Ong’s comments:


Joseph Prince had shamelessly lied more than once


that he is not an Antinomian.


But RC Sproul, an experienced theologian,


has described what constitutes


an Antinomian and Antinomianism.


RC Sproul said:


“Antinomianism is 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.”


This is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.


Never believe the lies of Joseph Prince.


He is, undoubtedly, an Antinomian.


Antinomianism is a heresy that Martin Luther himself


coined and fought against during the Reformation.


1. Joseph Prince’s Strawman argument to misrepresent us.


Joseph Prince’s strategy has always been to falsely accuse us


of obeying God’s law in order to be saved or justified.


So, his oft-sung tune is


“Hey, I thought Paul had already said in Romans 6:14


‘… for you are not under law but under grace,


then why are you teaching your people


to obey the law to be saved.


Joseph Prince keeps misrepresenting


our doctrinal stand time and time again


by repeating the lie.


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


which is heresy,


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


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 of 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.


This is basically the strawman argument


that he uses against us.


Let me ask Joseph Prince


which evangelical church or Pastor in Singapore


has ever taught that keeping the laws


is the way to earn our salvation.


Chances are he cannot even name one.


If he could, that church or Pastor would be a heretic.


Next, while we teach that obeying the moral law


has a place in sanctification but not justification,


Joseph Prince teaches that there is no more place


for the moral law or the Ten Commandments


for New Covenant believers


as they have been made obsolete


with the coming of New Covenant grace.


2. The ‘Majority may not always be right’ argument.


In many of my previous articles over the last few months,


I have used the teachings of many well-regarded Bible teachers


and Church leaders (the majority) to counter Joseph Prince’s teachings.


In his defence, Joseph Prince wrote the following in a recent sermon:


“People complain. People slander very easily. They insult.


The post, alright, their comments,


these are also words.


And many a times, they take majority as truth.


Majority is not always true.”


So, Joseph Prince’s indirect message to me


is that my ‘majority argument’


– those many Bible teachers I quoted against him


may not be right.


But Joseph Prince is not consistent


as he himself had also used ‘the majority’ argument.


Andrew Tan, an Ex New Creation Church member for 20 years, wrote:


“The church strived on building up its membership


believing that having more numbers


is a testimony that they are on the right path.


Pastor Prince once said in the pulpit


that 32,000 (now it is 34,000) members


cannot be wrong.


He used this argument to counter-attack those


who criticised the falsity of his grace theology,


saying that 32,000 people can’t be fooled.


This pride comes from confidence


in the rule of large numbers.”


Did you see my point?


Joseph Prince is basically saying


how can 32,000 people – such a huge majority be wrong?


He is using ‘the majority’ argument himself!


But why is Joseph Prince


using ‘the majority is not always right or true’ argument recently?


He knows that since I have surfaced the views of many well-known Bible teachers


that counter his Grace doctrine in many of my previous articles,


I would also be doing the same thing in the future.


So, Prince is utterly concerned about this


as it would be very difficult for him to defend his doctrine


if I could point out time after time that his doctrines


are refuted by well-known people like


John Stott, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Martin Luther,


John Calvin, John Wesley, etc.


So, Prince has to use


‘the majority is not always right’ argument as a defence,


in anticipation of my future articles.


But finally, the issue is not whether the majority or minority is right;


the issue is, we got to get down to the details of analysing


which parts of the arguments are biblically sound, and which parts, aren’t,


regardless of whether they are put forward by the majority or minority.


In this article, I am surfacing


a big number of well-regarded Bible teachers and leaders,


whose views are in total contrast


with that of Joseph Prince


regarding the moral law or the Ten Commandments.


Friends, these are not just ‘ordinary’ Christian leaders,


but exceptional and top leaders who have made their mark


in what God has called them to do.


All 27 of them have upheld


the place of the moral law or Ten Commandments


for New Covenant believers,


except Joseph Prince, who spoke against them,


specifically, that they are no longer relevant


or have gone obsolete in the New Covenant.


What you would be reading from hereon


are the views of 27 Top leaders of the Christian Church:


In a weekly Sunday sermon aired on YouTube


on 10 Sep 2023, 3 days ago, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 5-second video:


“But today


we are not under the law…” (Rom 6:14)


First, I’ll let John Stott handle Joseph Prince’s argument that


we are not under the law…” (Rom 6:14)


In ‘Christ in Conflict: Lessons from Jesus and His Controversies,’


John Stott wrote:


“Why, then, does Paul say


that Christians are “not under law”? (Rom 6:14)


It is true that he uses this expression several times,


but never on its own.


He always supplies (or at least implies) a contrast.


The fact is that we can never understand the meaning of a negative


unless we know with what it is being contrasted.


For example, if I simply wrote of someone


that “he does not behave like a man,”


you would not know if I was being extremely complimentary


and implying that he was more like an angel,


or if I was being rude


and implying that he was more like a child.


I remember once, on my return from a trip to America and Australia,


that I shocked my friends by saying,


“I haven’t had a bath for seven weeks.”


Before they had time to take me to task


for my unhygienic habits,


however, I was able to add,


“But I’ve had a shower every day!”


Negatives are misleading


unless they are read in the light of the positives


with which they are being contrasted.


Now Paul never expressed his negatives in isolation.


When he says that Christians are “not under law,”


he never meant that the category of law


has been altogether abolished,


(George Ong’s interjection:


This is what Joseph Prince is trying to deceive the people.)


but rather that we do not look to the law


for either our justification or our sanctification.


It would in any case be useless for us to do so,


because of the law’s “weakness.”


Paul writes: “[God did] what the law was powerless to do


because it was weakened by the flesh” (Romans Morality 143 8:3).


It is clear from this that the problem


is not with the law


but with us.


Because of our fallen nature, we cannot by ourselves keep the law.


And because we cannot keep the law,


it can neither justify nor sanctify us.


Instead, God has done for us and in us


what the law is powerless to do.


And he has done it by the sending


of both his Son and his Spirit.


He justifies us through the death of his Son


and sanctifies us through the indwelling of his Spirit.


That is to say, God accepts us,


not because we strive to obey the law,


but because of the finished work of Christ.


And our route to holiness


is not through our efforts to obey the law


but through the inward work of the Spirit.


It is in this double sense, then,


that Paul declares we have been “freed” from the law


and urges us to stand firm


in the freedom with which Christ has set us free.


It is in this sense too that he tells us


we are “not under the law.”


We are now able to understand his negative from its positive counterparts.


As for our justification:


“You are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14).


As for our sanctification:


“if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18).


What he is saying is that our justification


depends not on law but on grace,


and our sanctification


not on law but on the Spirit.


Christian believers don’t rely on the law


for their justification and their sanctification;


instead, they rely on God’s grace for both.


For “law” is all about our own efforts at obedience,


whereas “grace” means God’s plan to save us through his Son and his Spirit.


But the fact that the law


is unable to provide us with the ground of our justification


or the means of our sanctification


does not mean that we can dispense with it altogether.


(George Ong’s interjection:


This is where Joseph Prince’s deceptive teaching is exposed.)


We still need it as a guide to how we should behave.


Even though we are justified by grace rather than law,


God justifies us


“in order that the righteous requirement of the law


might be fully met in us” (Romans 8:4).


Again, even though we are sanctified by the Spirit rather than law,


what the Spirit does in sanctifying us


is precisely to write the law in our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3)!


Keeping God’s law is not the basis


on which we are put right with God


– but it is the result of it.


Again, keeping God’s law is not the means of our sanctification


– but it is the essence of it.


The Puritan Samuel Bolton summed up Paul’s teaching


about the law and the gospel like this:


“The law sends us to the Gospel,


that we may be justified,


and the Gospel sends us to the law again


to enquire what is our duty being justified.”


So, when in one place Paul writes


that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything;


what counts is the new creation” (Galatians 6:15)


and in another place


“circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.


Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Corinthians 7:19),


he is not contradicting himself.


For a new enthusiasm to keep God’s commandments


is exactly what the new creation (or new birth) leads to.


Indeed, John insists that “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4),


while one of the important evidences of the new birth


is that we do not persist in such sin


but obey God’s commandments instead (1 John 2:3-5; 3:4-10, 22-24; 5:1-5, 18).


When the Holy Spirit writes God’s law in our hearts,


he gives us both an inward understanding of its meaning


and a fervent desire to obey it.


The language of the regenerate believer,


with which the stance of the new morality (or Antinomiansim)


cannot easily be reconciled, is


“Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long” (Psalm 119:97),


“in my inner being I delight in God’s law” (Romans 7:22),


and “the precepts of the Lord are right, giving joy to the heart” (Psalm 19:8).


All of which brings us back to the heart again,


to the difference between Pharisaic righteousness and Christian righteousness,


and to Christ’s insistence that we keep God’s law,


not with a reluctant, external conformity,


but with a willing, inward conformity of mind and will and heart.”


In ‘The Message of the Sermon on the Mount by John Stott,’


John Stott wrote:


“The Pharisees had ‘obscured’ the law;


Jesus ‘restored it to its integrity’.


And in this matter Christian disciples


must follow Christ, not the Pharisees.


We have no liberty


to try to lower the law’s standards


and make it easier to obey.


That is the casuistry of Pharisees,


not Christians.


Christian righteousness


must exceed pharisaic righteousness.


Yet the advocates of the ‘new morality’ or ‘situational ethic’ (or Antinomianism)


are in principle trying to do exactly


what the Pharisees were doing.


True, they claim to take Christ’s part


against the Pharisees,


but they resemble the Pharisees


in their dislike of the law.


They regard the law


as rigid and authoritarian,


and (just like the Pharisees)


they attempt to ‘relax’ its authority,


to loosen its hold.


So they declare the category of law abolished


(which Jesus said he had not come to abolish)


and they set law and love at variance


with each other


(in a way in which Jesus never did).




(George Ong’s interjection:


Can you now see that Joseph Prince,


who is an Antinomian, is the real Pharisee?)


Jesus disagreed with the Pharisees’ interpretation of the law;


he never disagreed with their acceptance of its authority.


Rather the reverse.


In the strongest possible terms


he asserted its authority as God’s Word written,


and called his disciples


to accept its true and deeply exacting interpretation.”


In ‘The Message of the Sermon on the Mount by John Stott,’


John Stott wrote:


“More simply, as both the Reformers and the Puritans


used to summarize it,


the law sends us to Christ to be justified,


and Christ sends us back to the law to be sanctified.


George Ong’s comments:


Since the Reformers, the Puritans and John Stott himself


had stated that the law and sanctification are related,


how could Joseph Prince who said he believes in sanctification


and then dumped the law into the dustbin of history


at the same time?


Because Joseph Prince has gotten rid of the law,


how could his people be sanctified?


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


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,


without expecting reward,


without fear of punishment,


without seeking compensation,


as the heart is perfectly satisfied with God’s grace,


by which the law has been fulfilled.”


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


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 ‘The John Calvin Collection, 12 Classic Works,’


John Calvin wrote:


“That Christians are under the law of grace,


means not that they are to wander


unrestrained without law,


but that they are engrafted into Christ,


by whose grace they are freed from the curse of the Law,


and by whose Spirit


they have the Law written in their hearts.”


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 ‘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 


as the justice of God, which it embraced,


is consistent and uniform.”


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. 


The moral law stands on an entirely different foundation


from the ceremonial or ritual law, 


which was only designed for a temporary restraint


upon a disobedient and stiff-necked people;


whereas this was from the beginning of the world,


being ‘written not on tables of stone,’


but on the hearts of all the children of men,


when they came out of the hands of the Creator.


… Every part of this law must remain in force,


upon all mankind, and in all ages;


as not depending either on time or place,


or any other circumstances liable to change,


but on the nature of God and the nature of man,


and their unchangeable relation to each other.”


In ‘Living a Life of Fire An Autobiography,’


Reinhard Bonnke wrote:


‘Thou shalt not steal.


It is one of the Ten Commandments.’


(His mother said to him)


… I nodded again.


I had memorized the Ten Commandments.


I knew them by heart.


‘… When we break God’s law, it is sin, Reinhard.


You are a sinner, and I am worried about you


because sinners go to hell for all eternity.’


(His mother said to him)


The pain of my transgression grew heavy indeed.”


George Ong’s comments:


Reinhard Bonnke broke one of the Ten Commandments


but the glorious ending was that


after being convicted about the sin of stealing


through the law,


he came to the saving knowledge of Jesus.


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


Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:


“But a very subtle danger arises at this point,


and I have no doubt the Apostle had it in mind


when he wrote the very words we are considering.


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?


Are you not excluding every one of us from the kingdom of God?


Surely you are forgetting the gospel!


You have been referring to the original kingdom,


and the original law that God held before mankind;


but now the Lord Jesus Christ has come,


and we are confronted by something quite new;


we are no longer confronting 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 Exposition of Ephesians 5:18-6:9, Life in the Spirit,’


Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:


“Christianity does not do away with the Law as a portrayal of life.


What it does is to add grace to it,


enabling us to carry out the Law.


‘Children, honour thy father and mother’.


The Law gave that command,


Christianity does the same;


but it gives us this greater reason for obeying it,


it gives us an insight and an understanding into it.


We who are Christians realize that we are doing it ‘as unto the Lord’,


the Lord who came from heaven.


He came from heaven to honour His Father’s Law.


He kept the Law, He lived according to the Law.


And He has redeemed us


that we might be ‘a peculiar people, zealous of good works’,


that we might ‘fulfil’ the Law.


He gave Himself for us,


‘that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us,


who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit’ (Romans 8:4).


Grace raises the commandment to the highest level,


and we are to obey our parents, and to honour them, and to respect them


in order to please our Lord and Saviour who is looking down upon us.”


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


Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:


“Or let me put the matter in another way.


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.


There were some early Christians who said,


‘Ah, we are no longer under Law, we are under grace; that means that what we do does not matter. Because we are no longer under Law but are under grace, let us sin that grace may abound! Let us do what we like, it does not matter. God is love, we are forgiven, we are in Christ, we are born again, so let us do anything we like’.


These false deductions are dealt with


in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians


and to the Thessalonians,


and also in the first three chapters of the Book of Revelation.


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).


Of course, there is discipline!


In fact, the Christian ought to be much more disciplined


than the man who is under the Law,


because he sees its meaning more clearly,


and he has greater power.


He has a truer understanding,


and should therefore live a better and a more disciplined life.


There is not less discipline in the New Testament than in the Old;


there is more, and at a deeper level.


… 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.


It is nothing but human philosophy, human psychology.


It uses Christian terms


but it really evacuates such terms of their real meaning.”


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 interjection:


Because Joseph Prince refuses to see the truth,


he is now in the devil’s camp,


preaching heresies about God’s law.)


In ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


“It has been said that every unregenerate sinner


has the heart of a Pharisee.


This is true;


and it is equally true that every unregenerate sinner


has the heart of an Antinomian.


This is the character which is expressly given to the carnal mind:


it is “enmity against God”;


and the proof of this is, that


“it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7).”


In ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


“I am not come to destroy the Law.”


Nothing could be more explicit.


The word “destroy” here means “to dissolve or overthrow”.


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.


And if He did not “destroy” the Law,


then no one had destroyed it;


and if no one has destroyed it,


then the Law still stands with all its Divine authority;


and if the Law still abides


as the unchanging expression of God’s character and will,


then every human creature


is under lasting obligation to obey it;


and if every human creature,


then the Christian!


… So, far from Christ having repealed the Law,


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.


… “Do we then make void the Law through faith? God forbid:


yea, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:31).


… If we are saved “through faith”


is the Law useless?


Are we to understand you to mean (Paul)


that the Law has been annulled?


Not at all, is the apostle’s answer:


“We establish the Law.” (Rom 3:31)


What did the apostle mean when he said “we establish the Law”?


He meant that, as saved men,


Christians are under additional obligations to obey the Law,


for they are now furnished with new and more powerful motives to serve God.”


In ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


“Here again, the apostle (Paul),


so far from lending the slightest encouragement


to the strange delusion


that the Ten Commandments


have become obsolete to Christians,


actually, quotes five of them,


and then declares,


“Love is the fulfilling of the Law”. (Rom 13:8-10)


Love is not a substitution for Law-obedience,


but it is that which prompts the believer


to render obedience to it.


Note carefully,


it is not “love is the abrogating of the Law”,


but “love is the fulfilling of the Law”.


“The whole Law is grounded on love to God and love to man.


This cannot be violated without the breach of Law;


and if there is love,


it will influence us


to the observance of all God’s commandments” (Haldane).”


In ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


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


… rather is it a contrast between Law and grace


as the principles of two methods of justification,


the one false, the other true;


… Rom. 6:14 was just as true of the Old Testament saints


as of New Testament believers.


Caleb, Joshua, David, Elijah, Daniel


were no more “under Law”


in the sense that these words bear in Rom. 6:14,


than Christians are today.


Instead, they were “under grace”


in the matter of their justification,


just as truly as we are.


“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 ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


“For in Rom. 13:9 and Eph. 6:2 (New Testament)


several of the Ten Commandments


are quoted and enforced.


This is quite sufficient to prove


that the moral Law is not “done away”.


And such scriptures as Isa. 2:2,3; Jer. 31:33, etc.,


make it plain that the Law is not abolished”.


In ‘The Law and the Saint, by Arthur W. Pink,’


Arthur Pink wrote:


“The Law is fulfilled:


the Law was given to be fulfilled,


not only for us, but in us,


who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. (Rom 8:4)


There is danger here of a mistake on either side


– for if we do not preach faith alone for salvation,


no one is saved;


but if we preach a faith that does not obey,


we preach that which nullifies the faith which saves us.”


In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes,’


Charles Spurgeon said:


“I do not know a greater gift than this that even God can bestow


– save the gift of his only-begotten Son:


“I will put my laws into their mind,


and write them in their hearts.”


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.


… 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,’


Charles Spurgeon said:


“The Scriptures are everything to the Christian – his meat and his drink.


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


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


If we have lost our relish for Holy Scripture,


we are out of condition,


and need to pray for spiritual health…


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.”


… We delight in the law of God


after the inward man.


Oh, that we could perfectly obey


in thought, and word, and deed!


This is our view of heaven.


Thus, we sing of it…”


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.


Christ’s explanation of them


made them all the more searching.


In His Sermon on the Mount,


He carried the principles of the commandments


beyond the mere letter.


He unfolded them and showed that


they embraced more,


that they are positive as well as prohibitive.


The Old Testament closes with these words:


“Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the Statutes and Judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the Earth with a curse.” (Malachi 4:4-6)


Does that look as if the law of Moses was becoming obsolete?


The conviction deepens in me with the years


that the old truths of the Bible must be stated and restated


in the plainest possible language.


… The people must be made to understand


that the Ten Commandments are still binding,


and that there is a penalty attached to their violation.


… The Sermon on the Mount


did not blot out the Ten Commandments.


When Christ came, He condensed the statement of the law into this form:


“Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength… [and] thy neighbour as thyself.” (Mark 12:30,31)


Paul said:


“Love is the fulfilling of the Law.” (Romans 13:10)


But does this mean that


the detailed precepts of the Decalogue


are superseded


and have become back numbers?


Does a father cease to give children rules to obey


because they love him?


Does a nation burn its statute books


because the people have become patriotic?


Not at all.


And yet people speak as if the commandments


do not hold for Christians


because they have come to love God.


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.


So long as we obey,


they do not rest heavy upon us;


but as soon as we try to break away,


we find they are like fences


to keep us within bounds.


Horses need bridles


even after they have been properly broken in.


“We know that the Law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” (1 Timothy 1:8-10)


Now, my friend,


are you ready to be weighed by this law of God?


A great many people say that


if they keep the commandments


they do not need to be forgiven


and saved through Christ.


But have you kept them?


I will admit that


if you perfectly keep the commandments,


you do not need to be saved by Christ;


but is there a man in the wide world


who can truly say that he has done this?


Young lady, can you say:


“I am ready to be weighed by the law.”? Can you, young man?


Will you step into the scales and be weighed one by one by the Ten Commandments?


Now face these Ten Commandments


honestly and prayerfully.


See if your life is right,


and if you are treating God fairly.


God’s statutes are just, are they not?


If they are right, let us see if we are right.


Let us get alone with God and read His law


– read it carefully and prayerfully,


and ask Him to forgive us our sin


and what He would have us to do.


In ‘Hebrews, the Holiest of All, A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews,’


Andrew Murray wrote:


“8:10. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after these days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws Into their mind, And on their hearts also will I write them.


This is the covenant I will make after these days:


I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their hearts.


In chap. 7 (ver. 16)


we saw what the difference is between an external law and an inner life.


The one is impotent, the other mighty.


And we saw how even God’s law failed


of securing obedience,


because the heart was not right.


The promise of the new covenant


is to convert the external law into an inner life,


to put it so in the heart that it shall be its inmost life,


so that, as naturally as the heart wills and lives and acts on earth,


it shall will and live and do what God demands…


And so, God promises


that He will put His law in our minds and write it in our hearts,


in such a way that it shall be our inner nature, our very life,


and we shall act according to it


as naturally as we think or live.


Yes, He will do it.


So that we can say, even as His Son did,


Thy law is within My heart;


I delight to do thy will, O God.


… With this He would, by His Holy Spirit,


so put His laws into their heart


that they should delight in doing them.”


Charles Finney wrote




“Evermore the law


must prepare the way for the gospel.


To overlook this in instructing souls


is almost certain to result in false hope,


the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience,


and to fill the Church with false converts.”


AW Tozer said:


“Because we live in a period known as the age of God’s grace,


it has become a popular thing


to declare that the Ten Commandments


are no longer valid, no longer relevant in our society. 


With that context,


it has become apparent that Christian churches


are not paying attention to the Ten Commandments.


But Dwight L. Moody preached often in the commandments.


John Wesley said he preached the commands of the Law to prepare the way for the gospel.


R. A. Torrey told ministers if they did not preach the Law, they would have no response to the preaching of the gospel.


It is the Law that shows us our need


for the gospel of salvation and forgiveness!


It is accurate to say that our binding obligation


is not to the Old Testament Law.


As sincere Christians we are under Christ’s higher law


– that which is represented in His love and grace.


But everything that is morally commanded in the Ten Commandments


still comprises the moral principles


that are the will of God for His people.


God’s basic moral will for His people has not changed!”


In ‘Knowing God by JI Packer,’


JI Packer wrote:


“We are free from the law, they say;


our salvation does not depend on law-keeping;


we are justified through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.


How, then, can it matter, or make any difference to anything,


whether we keep the law henceforth or not?


… Why should we think God is concerned?


Does it not show an imperfect grasp of justification


when a Christian makes an issue of his daily sins,


and spends time mourning over them


and seeking forgiveness for them?


Is not a refusal to look to the law for instruction,


or to be concerned about one’s daily shortcomings,


part of the true boldness of justifying faith?


The Puritans had to face these “antinomian” ideas,


and sometimes made heavy weather of answering them.


If one allows it to be assumed that justification


is the be-all and end-all of the gift of salvation,


one will always make heavy weather of answering such arguments.


The truth is that these ideas must be answered in terms not of justification but of adoption


– a reality which the Puritans never highlighted quite enough.


Once the distinction is drawn between these two elements in the gift of salvation,


the correct reply becomes plain.


What is that reply?


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.


Law-keeping is the family likeness of God’s children;


Jesus fulfilled all righteousness,


and God calls us to do likewise.


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.


If we sin, we confess our fault and ask our Father’s forgiveness


on the basis of the family relationship, as Jesus taught us to do


– “Father … forgive us our sins” (Lk 11:2, 4).


The sins of God’s children do not destroy their justification or nullify their adoption,


but they mar the children’s fellowship with their Father.


“Be holy, for I am holy” is our Father’s word to us,


and it is no part of justifying faith


to lose sight of the fact that God, the King,


wants his royal children to live lives worthy


of their paternity and position.”


In ‘JI Packer Library,’


JI Packer wrote:


“Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he [Christ] is righteous—1 John 3:7


Antinomianism, which means being “anti-law,”


is a name for several views


that have denied that God’s law in Scripture


should directly control the Christian’s life.


… Christ-centered antinomianism


argues that God sees no sin in believers,


because they are in Christ,


who kept the law for them,


and therefore, what they actually do


makes no difference,


provided that they keep believing.


(George Ong’s interjection:


This is precisely what Joseph Prince has been teaching


that God sees no sins in us as we are in Christ.


And as long as you keep believing,


there’s nothing to worry about.


Prince is a true-blooded Antinomian.)


But 1 John 1:8-2:1 (expounding 1:7) and 3:4-10


point in a different direction,


showing that it is not possible to be in Christ


and at the same time to embrace sin as a way of life.


Dispensational antinomianism


holds that keeping the moral law


is at no stage necessary for Christians,


since we live under a dispensation of grace,


not of law.


(George Ong’s interjection:


As Joseph Prince holds to the doctrine of Dispensationalism,


he is also preaching such false doctrines about the law.)


Romans 3:31 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11


clearly show, however,


that law-keeping is a continuing obligation for Christians.


“I am not free from God’s law


but am under Christ’s law,” says Paul (1 Corinthians 9:21).


… It must be stressed that the moral law,


as crystallized in the Decalogue


and opened up in the ethical teaching of both Testaments,


is one coherent law,


given to be a code of practice


for God’s people in every age.


In addition, repentance means


resolving henceforth to seek God’s help


in keeping that law.


The Spirit is given to empower law-keeping


and make us more and more like Christ,


the archetypal law-keeper (Matthew 5:17).


This law-keeping is in fact


the fulfilling of our human nature,


and Scripture holds out no hope of salvation


for any who, whatever their profession of faith,


do not seek to turn from sin to righteousness


(1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Revelation 21:8).


In ‘JI Packer Library,’


JI Packer wrote:


“Now the blueprint for this life


was set out for all time in the Ten Commandments


which God gave the Jews through Moses on Sinai


about thirteen centuries before Christ.


Yesterday’s Christians saw them as


(to quote the title of William Barclay’s exposition of them)


The Plain Man’s Guide to Ethics.


They were right.


Today’s world, even today’s church,


has largely forgotten them (could you recite them?).


That is our folly and loss.


For here, in nugget form,


is the wisdom we need.


Because Scripture calls God’s Ten Commandments “law”


we assume they are like the law of the land,


a formal code of dos and don’ts,


restricting personal freedom


for the sake of public order.


But the comparison is wrong.


Torah (Hebrew for “law”)


means the sort of instruction


a good parent gives his child.


Proverbs 1:8 and 6:20 actually use “torah”


for parental teaching.


Think of all the wise man’s words


to his son in Proverbs 1:8-8:36


as addressed to us by our heavenly Father himself


(as indeed they are,


as in Augustine’s true phrase


“what thy Scripture says, thou dost say”).


That will give you a right idea


of the nature and purpose of God’s law.


It is there, not to thwart self-expression


(though, it may sometimes feel like that


– for children hate discipline!),


but to lead us into those ways


that are best for us.


God’s parental law


expresses God’s parental love.”


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 ‘Answers to Life’s Problems, by Billy Graham,’


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 ‘What Jesus Demands from the World,’


John Piper wrote:


“Dying was not his only mission.


But it was central.


In shedding his blood, he purchased the new-covenant promises.


The new covenant was God’s promise


that all who enter the coming kingdom


will have their sins forgiven,


will have the law written on their hearts,


and will know God personally (Jer. 31:31-34).


The blessings of this covenant are crucial


in enabling us to obey Jesus’ commandments.


Which makes Jesus’ death of supreme importance


is bringing about the impossible obedience that he demands.”


In ‘two of David Pawson’s 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 ‘Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount And His Confrontation with the World,’


DA Carson wrote:


“Of course, Paul is referring primarily to the function of law


within the history of the Jewish race.


However, this account of things also holds up at the personal level.


It is usually true that a man won’t cry to be found


until he knows or suspects he’s lost.


He won’t beg for pardon until he thinks he’s condemned.


He will not ask for forgiveness until he is conscious of his guilt.


I am aware, of course, that some people become Christians


without passing through deep traumas in these areas;


but I suspect some of the same features apply anyway.


For example, some are converted


because they are drawn by the humbling magnificence of Jesus’s love,


as expressed in his self-sacrifice.


But that means they recognize some need in their own lives,


or some claim he has on them, or an essential superiority in him


which they admit they do not possess


and would like to establish as their goal.


And these people, I suspect,


do not make up the majority of genuine conversions.


To go farther, I would argue that the reason we are currently seeing


such an embarrassingly high percentage of spurious conversions to Christ


is precisely because we have not first taught people their need of Christ.


In one of his letters to a young man who wanted to know how to preach the gospel,


John Wesley offers a quite different approach.


He says that whenever he arrived at any new place to preach the gospel,


he began with a general declaration of the love of God.


Then he preached “the law” (by which he meant all of God’s righteous standards


and the penalty of disobedience) as searchingly as he could.


This he kept up until a large proportion of his hearers found themselves under deep conviction of sin,


beginning even to despair of the possibility of forgiveness from this holy God.


Then, and only then, did he introduce the good news of Jesus Christ.”


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


John MacArthur said:


“The old covenant has passed away.


The old covenant is obsolete.


The old covenant was a shadow.


The old covenant contained the law of God 


but was not equal to the law of God.


The old covenant was the Mosaic law. 


It had the moral law of God,


which is a reflection of God’s holy nature,


which never changes because God never changes. 


But it also contained social stipulations, ceremonial observances,


which passed away,


because they were only temporary for purposes fulfilled in the past.


The old covenant, that stage of the law,


that form of the law, that embodiment of the law,


that sort of container of the moral law of God,


is obsolete.


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. 


What is obsolete is not the moral law of God,


but the embodiment of that law in the Mosaic economy.


The holy law of God never changes,


because God never changes,


and God’s laws are merely a manifestation of His holy nature.”


In conclusion, going through


what these 27 top Christian leaders


(hopefully, you would also go through the rest in the Appendix)


have stated their position


regarding the moral law or the Ten Commandments


would convince you that they are a clear refute of


of Joseph Prince’s position


that they have become obsolete


and irrelevant to New Covenant believers.


This means if these 27 leaders are right,


then Joseph Prince is wrong.


If Joseph Prince is right,


then all 27 top Christian leaders are wrong.


Friends, how can all 27 of them:


John Stott, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Arthur Pink, Charles Spurgeon, DL Moody, Andrew Murray, Charles Finney, AW Tozer, JI Packer, Billy Graham, John Piper, David Pawson, DA Carson, John MacArthur, George Whitefield, Reinhard Bonnke, James Montgomery Boice, JC Ryle, RA Torrey, Paris Reidhead, Robert Bolton, Walter Chantry,

Robbie Flockhart & RC Sproul.


be wrong?


That is why I said Joseph Prince is a Lone Ranger


in most of his grace doctrines.


But what is worse is that Joseph Prince


is falsely accusing all these 27 top leaders


for bringing people right into sin.


In a sermon, Joseph Prince said;


Please click here to view the 10-second video:


“So, those who advocate,


Yes, we must try our best to keep the law


is actually bringing people right into sin.”


On the contrary,


those who advocate the keeping of the law


are those who honour God and His attributes


as the moral law is a reflection of His character.


So, how could someone who is brought closer to the law


which is a reflection of God’s character be sinning?


Joseph Prince,


by being a false accuser of the brethren,


is following in the footsteps of Satan,


the one who empowers him to deceive the multitudes.


Rev George Ong




In ‘JI Packer Library,’


JI Packer wrote:


“Some read the Old Testament


as so much primitive groping and guesswork,


which the New Testament sweeps away.


But “God…spoke through the prophets” (Hebrews 1:1),


of whom Moses was the greatest


(see Deuteronomy 34:10-12);


and his Commandments,


given through Moses,


set a moral and spiritual standard for living


which is not superseded,


but carries God’s authority forever.


Note that Jesus’ twofold law of love,


summarizing the Commandments,


comes from Moses’ own God-taught elaboration of them


(for that is what the Pentateuchal law-codes are).


“Love your God” is from Deuteronomy 6:5,


“love your neighbor” from Leviticus 19:18.


It cannot be too much stressed


that Old Testament moral teaching


(as distinct from the Old Testament revelation of grace)


is not inferior to that of the New Testament,


let alone the conventional standards of our time.


… First, Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17)


that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it;


that is, to be, and help others to be,


all that God in the Commandments had required.


What Jesus destroyed


was inadequate expositions of the law,


not the law itself (Matthew 5:21-48; 15:1-9; etc.).


By giving truer expositions,


he actually republished the law.


The Sermon on the Mount itself


consists of themes from the Decalogue


developed in a Christian context.


Second, the negative form of the Commandments


has positive implications.