Joseph Prince Vs Kong Hee, Yang Tuck Yoong, JC Ryle, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley & John Calvin on the Ten Commandments – By Rev George Ong (Dated 8 Nov 2023)
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Don’t miss Appendix 1
God’s Law: Representation & Revelation of His Character
Don’t miss Appendix 2
Kong Hee’s excellent article, “Do We Need The Ten Commandments?”
EXCERPT NO 1 FROM THE ARTICLE:
Kong Hee wrote (Appendix 2):
“The Reformers made it a point to emphasize the need for the Ten Commandments in Christian growth and discipleship.
John Calvin (1509-1564) says that “even the believers have need of the law.”
Martin Luther (1483-1546), the original pioneer of the Reformation, fought with those who despised the Ten Commandments.
He coined the term, “antinomianism,” which the Oxford Dictionary defines
as “a belief that Christians are released by grace from obeying moral laws.”
To the Reformers, the Ten Commandments was an absolute necessity for sanctification and discipleship.
As you can see, the Ten Commandments are viewed as vitally important to practically all mainstream, orthodox, Bible-believing churches
—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.”
EXCERPT NO 2 FROM THE ARTICLE:
If John Calvin had placed curses on Joseph Prince for his teaching that it is impossible for a justified man to obey God’s commandments, and that the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christians,
and Martin Luther had concluded that Joseph Prince’s Antinomian teaching about the removal of the Ten Commandments is satanic,
and John Wesley saw Satan as the one who started Antinomianism, and that Antinomians like Joseph Prince is serving Satan himself.
how can Joseph Prince not be a heretic?
If 2 of the foremost leaders and theologians in the Protestant Reformation, namely,
Martin Luther and John Calvin, and the third spiritual giant, John Wesley,
had passed such damning judgement on Joseph Prince,
how can a Singapore Methodist Bishop
and a Singapore Presbyterian Pastor
say that Joseph Prince is not a heretic?
Two Sundays ago, on 29 Oct 2023, Joseph Prince didn’t preach at the worship services.
This was ‘timely’ as it has given me the opportunity to release 4 articles
(within a 7-day period at a scorching pace, and I’m not complaining)
unrelated to Joseph Prince’s teaching.
Last Sunday, 3 days ago, on 5 Nov 2023, Joseph Prince came on the scene preaching at the worship services, so I am in action again.
(This article was also sent to Rev Dr Ngoei Foong Nghian, General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Singapore (NCCS) office, and for the attention of the Executive Committee Members.)
In a Sunday sermon aired on YouTube on 5 Nov 2023, 3 days ago, Joseph Prince said;
Please click here to view the 1-minute video:
“Having wipe out the handwriting of requirements (Col 2:14).
Who wrote the law, the requirements on man?
Who wrote it? God.
The Ten Commandments was written with the finger of God.
So, having wiped out, can you see the word wiped out?
How did he (Jesus) legally do it?
Because the law is holy, the law is just, the law is good.
No, God sent Him for this purpose
because God knew that men cannot live under the law.
Jesus said no one can keep the law
and there are people who are saying you can keep the law.
You cannot say ceremonial law, moral law.
So, we see that Jesus was nailed to the cross.
We don’t see the Ten Commandments being nailed to the cross.
But God. No one can wipe out God’s handwriting.
No one but God Himself.
And that’s exactly what God did.
When Jesus was nailed to the cross,
God nailed his law.”
Joseph Prince has libelled Father God
when he said that Father God has wiped out the Ten Commandments:
“The Ten Commandments was written with the finger of God.
So, having wiped out, can you see the word wiped out?
… When Jesus was nailed to the cross,
God nailed his law.”
The Ten Commandments represent God’s holy character.
So, how can God wipe out His own character?
Wiping out His character is tantamount to wiping out the essence of His being.
Therefore, what Joseph Prince said is blasphemous!
The details of the argument that God’s law represents His character
is featured in Appendix 1.
This is an important teaching and so I hope you don’t miss it.
Remember, go to Appendix 1.
Second, Joseph Prince further said that Father God had sent Jesus to wipe out the Ten Commandments:
“God sent him for this purpose…”
Joseph Prince lied because Jesus did not come to wipe out or abolish the law but to fulfil it (Matt 5:17-20).
Joseph Prince also told another lie (half-truth) when he said Father God said that men cannot live under the law, and the Lord Jesus said that men cannot keep the law:
“… because God knew that men cannot live under the law.
Jesus said no one can keep the law…”
What both Father God and the Lord Jesus recognise is that men cannot keep the law
to be saved.
But they never said or taught that believers saved by grace cannot live under or they cannot keep the law.
In fact, the scripture teaches that once we become Christians, we are filled with the Holy Spirit, who will empower us to keep the law (Rom 8:4)
– not to be saved but because we are saved.
Third, Joseph Prince contradicted the views of the early Church Fathers, the Reformation Fathers and the Contemporary Church Fathers
when he strongly implied that justified believers cannot keep the law, when he said:
“… and there are people who are saying you can keep the law.
You cannot say ceremonial law, moral law.”
Every Church Father and all responsible Bible teachers such as Kong Hee and Yang Tuck Yoong
teach that while the law cannot save us,
believers are expected to keep the moral law because the law is now written in their hearts,
and they have the Holy Spirit to empower them to do so.
Besides, they also taught there is a difference between the moral law and the ceremonial law, which Joseph Prince refused to acknowledge.
Fourth, no true Evangelical Bible commentator would teach as Joseph Prince did in Colossians 2:14
– that Father God and the Lord Jesus have wiped out the moral law – Ten Commandments.
The most they would teach is that God has wiped out the law in the sense that they cannot be used to accuse believers as no men can be saved by the law.
But no True Evangelical commentator has ever taught in Colossians 2:14
that the Ten Commandments have been permanently wiped out with the death of Christ.
In a sermon, Kong Hee said;
Please click here to view the 1-minute video:
“How many of you love to or delight in commandments of God?
We do right. Amen.
Here the Bible says there is an inner transformation.
So, not being under the law, what does it mean?
It means you’re no longer punish by it because the law can no longer sentence you.
The law can no longer condemn you, punish you because you keep on breaking it.
But it doesn’t mean you don’t have to obey the law anymore.
Remember Romans chapter 8, same guy, Paul, the great Apostle.
He says God condemns sin in the flesh that the righteous requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us (Rom 8:3-4).
What does that mean?
That means might be obeyed by us.
Who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Something happens when the Holy Spirit comes in.
You can obey the laws of God.”
What Kong Hee taught about the law is diametrically opposed to that of Joseph Prince.
While Joseph Prince teaches that the moral law in the Ten Commandments has been wiped out,
Kong Hee taught that with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, we can obey the moral law.
Kong Hee also gave an excellent teaching on the law, which you shouldn’t miss
– please refer to Appendix 2.
In a sermon, Yang Tuck Yoong said;
Please click here to view the 1-minute video:
“Number 11, and I’ll go on record to say this:
You’re deceived if you believe in the Hypergrace message.
I’m standing here publicly to announce that.
I don’t care what flak I get. It doesn’t matter.
I don’t care who’s going to break fellowship with me.
It doesn’t matter. I call a spade a spade. Amen.
And the longer you sit under that anointing or teaching,
you’re going to be brainwashed by it.
You’re going to be brainwashed by it.
The theological term is Antinomianism.
It’s a theology that holds the idea that under the dispensation of grace,
that the moral law has got no more value.
Come on, my friends, what Bible have you been reading?
When we are dealing with the law,
you must make a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law.
When Jesus came here, He abolished the ceremony,
but He never abolished the moral law.
In fact, he said I came to fulfil the law. Hallelujah.
The law is good, the law is righteous and the law is holy; that’s what Paul says.
And the Bible has never negated the place of the law in our hearts.
In the New Testament, the law is written on the tablets of our hearts.
In the Old Testament, it was written on the tablets of stone.
The law is good, Amen, Amen.
And once in a while, you should recite the Ten Commandments
and say, ‘God, am I living to the light of this word, Hallelujah.’”
How Yang Tuck Yoong described Antinomianism:
“The theological term is Antinomianism.
It’s a theology that holds the idea that under the dispensation of grace,
that the moral law has got no more value,”
is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.
Joseph Prince is undoubtedly an Antinomian.
What Joseph Prince teaches that God Himself has wiped out the Ten Commandments
is anti-thecal to the teachings of every Church Father such as JC Ryle, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley and John Calvin:
In ‘The Complete Works of JC Ryle,’
JC Ryle wrote:
“For another thing, let us beware of despising the law of the Ten Commandments.
Let us not suppose for a moment that it is set aside by the Gospel, or that Christians have nothing to do with it.
The coming of Christ did not alter the position of the Ten Commandments one hair’s breadth.
If anything, it exalted and raised their authority. (Romans 3:31)
The law of the Ten Commandments is God’s eternal measure of right and wrong.
By it is the knowledge of sin; by it the Spirit shows men their need of Christ, and drives them to Him:
to it Christ refers His people as their rule and guide for holy living.
In its right place it is just as important as “the glorious Gospel.
… It cannot save us: we cannot be justified by it;
but never, never let us despise it.
It is a symptom of an ignorant ministry, and an unhealthy state of religion,
when the law is lightly esteemed.
The true Christian “delights in the law of God.” (Romans 7:22)
In ‘The Complete Works of JC Ryle,’
JC Ryle wrote:
“There is no greater mistake than to suppose that a Christian has nothing to do with the law and the Ten Commandments,
because he cannot be justified by keeping them.
… Our Lord Jesus Christ never made light of the Ten Commandments;
on the contrary, in His first public discourse, the Sermon on the Mount, He expounded them, and showed the searching nature of their requirements.”
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.”
In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes, Volume 1: Sermons 1-200,’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“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.”
In ‘The Sermons of Charles Spurgeon in Four Volumes, Volume 1: Sermons 1-200,’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“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 New Testament, Spurgeon’s Sermons By Each Book.’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“Then, on the other hand, there is the Antinomian, who says,
“Yes, I know I am saved by grace alone.”
And then breaks the Law – says it is not binding on him –even as a rule of life.
He asks,
“Wherefore then serves the Law?”
He throws it out of his door as an old piece of furniture only fit for the fire because it is not adapted to save his soul.
Why, a thing may have many uses, if not a particular one.
It is true that the Law cannot save.
And yet it is equally true that the Law is one of the highest works of God
and is deserving of all reverence and extremely useful when applied by God to the purposes for which it was intended.”
George Ong’s comments:
Besides Yang Tuck Yoong’s description of what an Antinomian is, which fits Joseph Prince entirely,
Charles Spurgeon is another teacher who describes an Antinomian, which, again, dovetails with the core teachings of Joseph Prince.
In ‘The New Testament, Spurgeon’s Sermons By Each Book.’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“Very great mistakes have been made about the Law.
Not long ago, there were those about us who affirmed that the Law is utterly abrogated and abolished.
They openly taught that Believers were not bound to make the moral Law the rule of their lives.
What would have been sin in other men they counted not to be sin in themselves.
From such Antinomianism as that, may God deliver us!
We are not under the Law as the method of salvation,
but we delight to see the Law in the hand of Christ and desire to obey the Lord in all things.
Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the Law
and they have, in effect, said that the perfect Law of God was too hard for imperfect beings
and, therefore, God has given us a milder and easier rule.
These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.”
George Ong’s comments:
Again, how Charles Spurgeon has described about Antinomianism,
fits the false grace teachings of Joseph Prince regarding the law.
In ‘The New Testament, Spurgeon’s Sermons By Each Book.’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“A third reason I will give why the Law must be perpetual
is that to suppose it altered is most dangerous.
To take away from the Law its perpetuity
is, first of all, to take away from it its power to convict of sin.
Is it so, that I, being an imperfect creature, am not expected to keep a perfect Law?
Then it follows that I do not sin when I break the Law!
And if all that is required of me is that I am to do according to the best of my knowledge and ability,
then I have a very convenient rule, indeed
– and most men will take care to adjust it so as to give themselves as much latitude as possible!
By removing the Law,
you have done away with sin, for sin is the transgression of the Law!
And where there is no Law, there is no transgression!
When you have done away with sin,
you may as well have done away with the Savior and with salvation
– for they are by no means necessary!”
George Ong’s comments:
What Charles Spurgeon said is precisely what Joseph Prince has done.
He has done away with sin
as he teaches God can never see any sin in us even though we sin, as every future sin has been forgiven.
He has done away with the law
by his teaching that with the dawning of grace, the law has no place in a New Covenant believer’s life.
The teaching that you have no sin to bother you with and there is no law to hound you
– that is the ultimate feel-good teaching!
No wonder droves of carnal goats are drawn to New Creation Church.
But the gross implication that Charles Spurgeon raised is that
if you have done away with the law (as Joseph Prince has done),
you have done away with sin
and when you have done away with sin (as Joseph Prince has done),
you are effectively also doing away with the Saviour and salvation.
Anyone who dares to do that has got to be a heretic.
In ‘The New Testament, Spurgeon’s Sermons By Each Book.’
Charles Spurgeon said:
“The Gospel itself would be destroyed
could you destroy the Law of God!
To tamper with the Law
is to trifle with the Gospel.
“Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all is fulfilled.” (Matt 5:18)
George Ong’s comments:
Because Joseph Prince has tampered with the law by chucking it away into the dustbin of history,
the gospel that he is preaching is also a tampered gospel
– a false gospel that cannot save.
Charles Spurgeon wrote,
“I do not believe that any man can preach the gospel
who does not preach the Law.
… They will never accept grace
till they tremble before a just and holy law.
Therefore, the Law serves a most necessary purpose,
and it must not be removed from its place.”
Charles Spurgeon also wrote,
“He who preaches the gospel without preaching the Law
may hold all the results of it in his hand,
and there will be little for him to hold.”
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 precisely 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 ‘John Wesley’s Sermons, An Anthology, Edited by Albert C. Outler & Richard P. Heitzenrater,’
John Wesley said:
And, first, ‘think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.’
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.”
“2. 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 (moral law) 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.”
“… at the same time declaring it should never be changed, but remain in force to the end of the world.
… Christianity, as it includes the whole moral law of God,
both by way of injunction and of promise, if we will hear him, is designed of God to be the last of all his dispensations. There is no other to come after this.
This is to endure till the consummation of all things.
Of consequence, all such new revelations are of Satan, (that the moral law is removed) and not of God;
and all pretences to another more perfect dispensation fall to the ground of course.
‘Heaven and earth shall pass away; but this word shall not pass away.’”
George Ong’s comments:
Joseph Prince, who teaches that the moral law in the Ten Commandments is abrogated for New Covenant believers,
is demolished by John Wesley.
But what’s most damaging is that John Wesley said that such a teaching – that the moral law in the Ten Commandments has been removed
is of Satan and not of God.
This means Joseph Prince is used by Satan to preach his Antinomian teaching
that the Ten Commandments have become obsolete.
John Wesley asserted that no part of the moral law is to be done away with for the gospel to be established.
And that God, who had written His law ‘on the hearts of all the children of men,’ will endure.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760,’
John Wesley wrote:
“… though I preached the Law
from the beginning of my sermon to the end,
yet many were exceedingly comforted.”
George Ong’s comments:
Joseph Prince, who has been singing the tune that the preaching of the law would condemn and put fear into us,
is contradicted by John Wesley,
who wrote that the preaching of the law
could conversely and exceedingly comfort believers.
“Without the Law,
the gospel is powerless;
it leaves the lost in the dark
about their sin and its deadly consequences.”
George Ong’s comments:
According to John Wesley,
this means that Joseph Prince, who has been preaching a gospel without the law
is preaching a powerless and false gospel
as the hearers are still left in the dark about their sin
and its deadly consequences.
“Before I preach love, mercy and grace,
I must preach sin, law and judgement.”
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760,’
John Wesley wrote:
“Fri. 4. – I preached about one at Forncet, to a much milder people than I left there; and in the evening at Kenninghall,
where the Antinomians had labored hard
in the devil’s service.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley described the Antinomians of which Joseph Prince is one,
as serving the devil.
This means Joseph Prince, who is an Antinomian,
is not serving God but Satan himself.
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters,’
John Wesley wrote:
“Q. 4. What was the rise of Methodism, so called?
A. In 1729, two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, and incited others so to do.
In 1737, they saw holiness comes by faith.
They saw likewise, that men are justified before they are sanctified; but still, holiness was their point.
God then thrust them out, utterly against their will, to raise a holy people.
When Satan could no otherwise hinder this,
he threw … and then Antinomianism,
which strikes directly at the root of all holiness.”
George Ong’s comments:
When John Wesley was raised to preach the message of holiness,
he saw Antinomianism as the biggest obstacle to his calling.
Again, Wesley saw Satan as the one who started Antinomianism.
Like Martin Luther, John Wesley saw Antinomianism as satanic as it has its roots in Satan.
John Wesley wrote that Antinomianism,
‘strikes directly at the root of all holiness.’
This isn’t difficult to fathom, as Joseph Prince, who is an Antinomian, teaches only the half-truth,
of a justification-only
but a no-sanctification (holiness) gospel.
Prince even mocked sanctification or holiness by his cavalier remark that holiness is only an accident.
That is why Joseph Prince never preached a single sermon on sanctification in his 30 years of preaching ministry because he didn’t believe in it.
A justification-only and a no-sanctification gospel is a half gospel.
And a half-gospel is a false gospel that does not bring about saving faith.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760,’
John Wesley wrote:
“Sat. 22. – I came to Wednesbury.
The Antinomian Teachers had labored hard to destroy this poor people.
Sunday, 23. I talked an hour with the chief of them, Stephen Timmins.
I was in doubt whether pride had not made him mad.
An uncommon wildness and fierceness in his air, his words, and the whole manner of his behavior,
almost induced me to think God had for a season given him up into the hands of Satan.”
George Ong’s comments:
Again, John Wesley linked Antinomianism to Satan himself.
Because Satan is involved, Wesley described Antinomianism as one that would destroy the people.
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 4, Journals Sept 13, 1773 – Oct 24, 1790,’
John Wesley wrote:
“At Wednesbury, likewise, I was constrained by the multitude of people to preach abroad in the evening.
I strongly enforced upon them the Apostle’s words,
“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”
If we do not “go on to perfection,”
how shall we escape…
Antinomianism, hell-fire?”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley saw the ominous threat of Antinomianism to such an extent,
that those who are influenced by Antinomianism, he saw them, in a sense, as being destroyed by hell-fire.
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 4, Journals Sept 13, 1773 – Oct 24, 1790,’
John Wesley wrote:
“Tues. 27 – I preached at Dudley,
in the midst of Antinomians and backsliders…”
“We beseech you not to receive the grace of God in vain.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley strongly implies that Antinomians like Joseph Prince do not possess the grace of God.
If one doesn’t possess the grace of God, one is clearly not a believer in Christ.
And the joke is Joseph Prince, who is seemingly preaching the grace of God to the world,
doesn’t possess the grace that he himself preaches.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 14, Grammars, Music, Letters,’
John Wesley wrote:
“May He once again make it a powerful antidote
against the spreading poison of Antinomianism;
and thereby save many simple, unwary souls
from “seeking death in the error of their life!”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley treated the threat of Antinomianism
utterly seriously.
He described it as poison
that would bring about one’s spiritual death.
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 5, The Life of John Wesley, First Series of Sermons (1-39),’
John Wesley wrote:
“It would prevent innumerable evils;
Antinomianism in particular:
For generally speaking,
they are the Pharisees who make the Antinomians.
Running into an extreme so palpably contrary to Scripture,
they occasion others to run into the opposite one.
These, seeking to be justified by works,
affright those from allowing any place for them.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley viewed Antinomianism with such disdain
that he characterised it as evil.
Wesley reminded us to avoid both equally deadly heresies
– Legalism, which the Pharisees are guilty of,
and Antinomianism, which is Joseph Prince’s core teachings.
In ‘The Law of God,’
“EVEN THE BELIEVERS HAVE NEED OF THE LAW
The third and principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law,
finds its place among believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns.
For even though they have the law written and engraved upon their hearts by the finger of God [Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 10:16],
that is, have been so moved and quickened through the directing of the Spirit that they long to obey God…”
George Ong’s comments:
John Calvin clearly taught that the law is still positively relevant to New Covenant believers,
as opposed to Joseph Prince’s teaching that the law, which is under the Old Covenant,
is obsolete and no longer binding on New Covenant believers.
For the Christian, obeying the law isn’t a burdensome task but a holy longing that the Spirit quickens,
as the law is now written in the hearts of believers.
In ‘Selected Works of John Calvin Vol. 3 Tracts Part 3,’
“XVIII. Whosoever shall say that the commandments of God are impossible of observance even to a justified man, and to one constituted under grace,
let him be anathema (cursed).
XIX. Whosoever shall say that nothing is commanded in the gospel except faith; that other things are indifferent, being neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the ten commandments do not apply to Christians,
let him be anathema (cursed).
XX. Whosoever shall say that a justified man, however perfect, is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe as if the gospel were a naked and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments,
let him be anathema (cursed).
George Ong’s comments:
Do you know the seriousness of all the points that John Calvin had made?
Every single point that John Calvin had written about God’s laws in the Ten Commandments
is what Joseph Prince has contravened in his writings and sermons,
and a curse was pronounced by John Calvin on the person (including Joseph Prince),
who is guilty of each of those doctrinal aberrations.
If you think that John Calvin is too severe in his pronouncements, you are mistaken.
John Calvin was only following the example of the Apostle Paul,
who pronounced a curse on anyone who distorts the gospel of the grace of God into a heresy (Gal 1:8-9).
The Greek word, ‘Anathema’, is the English word for ‘curse’.
It is the same Greek word that John Calvin and the Apostle Paul used in Galatians 1:8-9.
If John Calvin had placed curses on Joseph Prince for his teaching that it is impossible for a justified man to obey God’s commandments, and that the Ten Commandments do not apply to Christians,
and Martin Luther had concluded that Joseph Prince’s Antinomian teaching about the removal of the Ten Commandments is satanic,
and John Wesley saw Satan as the one who started Antinomianism, and that Antinomians like Joseph Prince is serving Satan himself.
how can Joseph Prince not be a heretic?
If 2 of the foremost leaders and theologians in the Protestant Reformation, namely,
Martin Luther and John Calvin, and the third spiritual giant, John Wesley,
had passed such damning judgement on Joseph Prince,
how can a Singapore Methodist Bishop
and a Singapore Presbyterian Pastor
say that Joseph Prince is not a heretic?
Rev George Ong
Appendix 1
GOD’S LAW: REPRESENTATION & REVELATION OF HIS CHARACTER
In ‘Exposition of Romans, chapters 3:20-4:25, Atonement and Justification,
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:
“What is the meaning of the Ten Commandments if it is not this?
They are a revelation of the holy character of God.”
Ask yourself, how can the moral law in the Ten Commandments, which is a revelation of God’s character,
be wiped out as Joseph Prince teaches?
In a sermon, ‘Christ, The End of The Law’ based on Romans 10:4,
Martyn Lloyd-Jones said:
“The law of God which He gave to the children of Israel through Moses
is a permanent expression of God’s holy character and of what God expects from mankind.
The law is not temporary. The law is eternal.”
How can the moral law in the Ten Commandments, which is eternal and a permanent expression of God’s holy character,
be wiped out, as Joseph Prince teaches?
If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is of the view that the moral law
is based on and is a permanent expression of God’s eternal character,
the credibility of Joseph Prince, who teaches that the law is obsolete, has gone down the drain.
What is most damaging to Joseph Prince
is that the very scriptures contradict his view
that the moral law in the Ten Commandments has been wiped out.
I’m going to prove to you from the scriptures that the law is, indeed, a reflection, representation and revelation of God’s character:
1. God’s Character is Good.
God’s Law is Good.
God’s Character is Good.
Luke 18:19 NIV
19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good – except God alone.”
God’s Law is Good.
Romans 7:12 NIV
12 “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.”
2. God’s Character is Holy.
God’s Law is Holy.
God’s Character is Holy.
Isaiah 5:16 NIV
16 “But the Lord Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will be proved holy by his righteous acts.”
God’s Law is Holy.
Romans 7:12 NIV
12 “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.”
3. God’s Character is Just.
God’s Law is Just.
God’s Character is Just.
Deuteronomy 32:4 NIV
4 “He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.”
God’s Law is Just.
Romans 7:12 NKJV
12 “Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.”
4. God’s Character is Truth.
God’s Law is Truth.
God’s Character is Truth.
Deuteronomy 32:4 NKJV
4 “… For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.”
God’s Law is Truth.
Psalm 119:142, 151 NKJV
142 “… And Your law is truth.” 151 “You are near, O Lord, And all Your commandments are truth.”
5. God’s Character is Perfect.
God’s Law is Perfect.
God’s Character is Perfect.
Matthew 5:48 NIV
48 “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
God’s Law is Perfect.
Psalm 19:7 NIV
7 “The law of the Lord is perfect, refreshing the soul…”
6. God’s Character is not Burdensome.
God’s Law is not Burdensome.
God’s Character is not Burdensome.
Matthew 11:30 NIV
30 “For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
God’s Law is not Burdensome.
1 John 5:3 NASB
3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.”
7. God’s Character is Light.
God’s Law is Light.
God’s Character is Light.
1 John 1:5 NIV
5 “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
God’s Law is Light.
Proverbs 6:23 KJV
23 “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.”
8. God’s Character is Love.
God’s Law is Love.
God’s Character is Love.
1 John 4:8 NIV
8 “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
God’s Law is Love.
Romans 13:10 NIV
10 “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
9. God’s Character is Righteous.
God’s Law is Righteous.
God’s Character is Righteous.
Exodus 9:27 NKJV
27 “And Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron, and said to them, “I have sinned this time. The Lord is righteous, and my people and I are wicked.”
God’s Law is Righteous.
Psalm 19:9 RSV
9 “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever; the ordinances of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether.”
10. God’s Character is Pure.
God’s Law is Pure.
God’s Character is Pure.
1 John 3:3 NIV
3 “All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.”
God’s Law is Pure.
Psalm 19:8 NASB
8 “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.”
11. God is Spirit.
God’s Law is Spiritual.
God is Spirit.
John 4:24 NIV
24 “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”
God’s Law is Spiritual.
Romans 7:14 NIV
14 “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.”
12. God’s Character is Unchangeable.
God’s Law is Unchangeable.
God’s Character is Unchangeable.
Malachi 3:6 NIV
6 “I the Lord do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.”
God’s Law is Unchangeable.
Psalm 89:34 CSB
34 “I will not violate my covenant or change what my lips have said.”
13. God is Eternal.
God’s Law is Eternal.
God is Eternal.
Genesis 21:33 NIV
33 “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Eternal God.”
God’s Law is Eternal.
Psalm 111:7-8 NIV
7 “The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy. 8 They are established for ever and ever, enacted in faithfulness and uprightness.”
After having gone through these many passages, it is so obvious that there are many similar characteristics between God’s character and His law.
The law, indeed, is a mirror of God’s character.
The law reveals the character of God.
This means that by internalising and keeping the law of God, we become more like God every day.
And here comes Joseph Prince,
who has the unholy guts to treat the moral law of God in the Ten Commandments in such a contemptuous way
when he said, God Himself has wiped them out.
Though the holy law of God reveals and represents and is a permanent expression of His character,
Joseph Prince, by teaching that God’s law has been done away with,
is also doing the same to God’s character.
What? – Is Joseph Prince doing away with God’s character?
Yes – he is!
And doing away with God’s character is effectively doing away with His person!
This is because the law represents the character of God, and God’s character is eternal.
So, Joseph Prince, by teaching that God’s moral law is temporary and is now abolished or wiped out,
is also implying that God’s character is no longer in existence.
That, to me, is blasphemy, pure and simple!
Is this not a serious misrepresentation of God and the Christian doctrine?
Are you now aware of the seriousness of the issue?
An attack on God’s moral law is an attack on God’s character, and an attack on God’s character is an attack on God Himself.
And the devil would be most happy for Joseph Prince to do that.
You must never believe Joseph Prince’s lies that he isn’t against the Law.
In many of Joseph Prince’s writings, sermon videos and audios, it can be proven that he despises the law.
In ‘Destined To Reign’, Joseph Prince wrote,
“Learn to see the Ten Commandments (the law of God) and condemnation as the same thing.
Whenever you read or think about the law, think “condemnation”.”
In ‘Destined To Reign’, Joseph Prince wrote,
“Come on, church, it is time to see that it is the devil who benefits from all this.
The devil is the one using the law to bring about death and condemnation, and to put believers under oppression!”
In ‘Unmerited Favor’, Joseph Prince wrote,
“Along the same lines, I would imagine that Romans 7:9 is probably the most studied and memorized verse in hell.
All junior demons would be taught this verse and the lecture would be titled,
“How to bring about a revival of sin”!
According to Paul, when you introduce the law, there will be a REVIVAL OF SIN!
And that’s not all.
Apart from reviving sin, the law also kills and brings death!”
To defend himself, Joseph Prince would frequently say something like this:
“I’ve been accused of going against the law. Who says I am against the law?
Oh, I did say that the law is good, I did say that the law is righteous, and I did say that the law is holy.”
Then, immediately after that or at another instance, he goes on and on and on to denigrate and dismiss the law.
He issues a one-sentence qualification about the positive side of the law,
and then he spends a big portion of his focus to discredit the law and to dismiss it out of existence.
Joseph Prince would say,
“I am not against the law; I have the highest respect for the law.”
But why did he say the law condemns, kills and brings about our death?
Why did he say the devil is using the law to oppress us?
Of course, he is against the law.
He is so against the law that he has literally made the law as the ‘enemy’ of grace.
The law which is an ally to grace, has been grossly misrepresented by Joseph Prince to be an enemy of grace.
What God has marvellously joined together – Law and Grace – Joseph Prince has recklessly torn them asunder.
By saying that the Ten Commandments have been wiped out, Joseph Prince is effectively saying that the holy law of God needs to be chucked away into the theological dustbin of history.
So, don’t ever believe Joseph Prince when he tries to defend and qualify in his books and in his sermons that he is not against the law; he is.
He is only wanting the advantage of hammering the law and without being exposed for doing so.
It is like a man who keeps slapping you, and then each time after he has slapped you, he claims he is not slapping you.
That’s how despicable Joseph Prince is, pretending he is not despising the law when he really is.
So, don’t be naïve and be deceived by just his mere qualifying statement chiefly made to protect himself,
“I am not against the law.”
Examine and scrutinise all his teachings in his books and sermons,
and his lies and the fact that him being against the holy law of God, will be exposed for the world to see.
By doing away with the law when he said God had wiped it out, he is also doing away with God’s character, and finally his person.
Only the devil and a wolf in sheepskin in Joseph Prince would tell you to do that.
Appendix 2
Kong Hee wrote an excellent article on the Ten Commandments in his website.
I take the liberty to reproduce it here:
Do We Need The Ten Commandments?
In Exodus 19, God called Moses up to Mount Sinai and told him that if the children of Israel would obey Him and keep His covenant, they would be His special people.
He then gave them “The Law,” which is also commonly known as the “Mosaic Law” or the “law of Moses.”
Although the name was attributed to a man, we must be mindful that the One who gave it was God Himself.
Moses was merely the “messenger boy.”
James 4:12 makes it very clear that there is really only “one Lawgiver”— God.
The law consists of various parts.
The most important portion is the Ten Commandments, also known as the “moral law,” as they express the morality, values and character of God.
The commandments were engraved on stone tablets and are recorded in Exodus 20: 2-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21.
Because there are ten of them, they are also commonly called the “Decalogue” (Gr. dekalogos), which means the “ten words” or “ten pronouncements.”
Traditions differ in the numbering of the Ten Commandments.
The standard listing according to Protestant Reformed tradition is as follows:
I. You shall have no other gods before Me.
II. You shall not make for yourself a carved image.
III. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
V. Honor your father and your mother.
VI. You shall not murder.
VII. You shall not commit adultery.
VIII. You shall not steal.
IX. You shall not bear false witness.
X. You shall not covet.
Apart from these commandments, God gave Moses further instructions that governed the ethics and rituals of the Israelites.
Augustine (354-430) divided the law of Moses into two parts: the moral and symbolical.
For example, “you shall not covet” is a moral law; “you shall circumcise every male on the eighth day” is a symbolical law.
To Augustine and the early Church fathers, the moral law of the Ten Commandments is still binding while the symbolical law is no longer binding.
Besides circumcision and the sacrifices, Augustine categorizes as symbolical law the tabernacle regulations, the dietary laws, the feasts, etc.
Because they are non-binding, he interprets the rules against blended clothing (wool and linen) and the mixed yoke (ox and ass) allegorically.
As always, Scripture must be compared with Scripture to avoid misinterpretation.
It is clear that Jesus brought to an end the observance of the symbolical laws by His redemptive accomplishment.
The entire sacrificial system and ceremonial washings were “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Heb. 9:10).
These symbolical or topological law was “only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves” (Heb. 10:1), its regulations were set aside once the realities had arrived in Christ (Heb. 7:18-19, 22).
Jesus ushered in the new order that made the ceremonial rituals redundant: “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13).
This moral/symbolical distinction eventually gave way to the more precise three-part analysis first worked out in detail by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
Aquinas says that the law of Moses is made up of moral, ceremonial and civil precepts.
From the days of Aquinas to the Reformation, to our time, the Church has been consistent in teaching that only the moral law is still binding, all ceremonial and civil laws are no longer applicable to believers.
Yet, there is always the vocal minority who feel that since we are in the age of the Gospel, when we are justified by faith alone, the law is now “abolished,” or in theological jargon, “abrogated.”
In the June 21, 2009 issue of The Age, Cleric Francis McNab, the executive minister at St. Michael’s Uniting Church in Melbourne, Australia, says,
“The Ten Commandments is one of the most negative documents ever written.”
In a recent May 11, 2009 blog entry, a prominent megachurch pastor says,
“When you come under the law by trying to keep God’s commandments in order to be blessed, it will lead to death. There will be deadness in your marriage, ministry, health, career.”
The message is clear: the Ten Commandments are unnecessary, oppressive, and maybe even downright evil.
Then there are those who wrongly speculate that the Old Testament teaches “salvation by law” while the New Testament teaches “salvation by grace through faith.”
Nothing can be further from the truth.
Justifying faith originates in the Old Testament.
The phrase, “the just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17), which became the rallying cry of the Reformers in the 16th century, is really a concept that first appears in Habakkuk 2:4, an Old Testament Scripture.
In Romans 4, Paul went through extraordinary length to explain that both the greatest Old Testament patriarch, Abraham, and the greatest Old Testament king, David, were themselves saved by faith, not by the works of the law.
This may come as a shock to you, but the whole purpose of the New Testament is to establish the law—the moral law of the Ten Commandments.
Jesus says so Himself:
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17).
This statement does not mean that Christ has come to merely fulfill the messianic predictions contained in the old covenant.
The Greek for “fulfill” is pleroo which means to expand, establish, strengthen, make firmer and fuller.
Jesus wants us to have the true meaning of the law so that our understanding of it is not shallow or erroneous.
And He demonstrates that masterfully in the Sermon on the Mount when He broadens and deepens what the commandments really mean when they say
“you shall not murder,” or “you shall not commit adultery” (Matt. 5:21, 27).
Like Jesus, Paul says faith and law are not mutually exclusive.
One doesn’t invalidate the other.
Paul affirms the words of Christ by saying,
“Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31).
And how is the law established?
It is established “not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3).
Herein lies the difference between the two covenants.
In the old covenant, the Ten Commandments was a set of external code written on stone tablets.
But in the new covenant, the Holy Spirit writes those commandments in our hearts, and gives us the grace to live them out in our daily lives.
This is not an afterthought of God but His original plan for the law from its very inception.
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Jer. 31:33).
The New Testament repeatedly confirms this. One such example is:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Heb. 8:10).
This is really what the new covenant is—to have the law written in our hearts. And the way God does that is through the Holy Spirit, who Himself gives us the power to obey them.
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them (Ezek. 36:26-27).
You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart (2 Cor. 3:2-3).
Think about it, if the moral law is unimportant to us in the new covenant,
why then would the Holy Spirit even bother to write it into our hearts?
This is the whole argument of Paul when he says, “So now we can obey God’s laws if we follow after the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 8:4 TLB).
So, in the new covenant, we are still serving the law, but we are serving “in the newness of the Spirit” because we want to, not because we have to!
We serve not out of fear because the law is our burdensome master, but out of love because Christ is now our Lord.
It is no longer a hope of obedience leading to salvation but rather, salvation leading to obedience.
To confirm their validity, all the Ten Commandments are expounded time and again throughout the epistles:
Commandment I 1 Corinthians 8:6
Commandment II 1 John 5:21
Commandment III 1 Timothy 6:1
Commandment IV Hebrew 4:3-11
Commandment V Ephesians 6:2
Commandment VI 1 John 3:15
Commandment VII Galatians 5:19
Commandment VIII Ephesians 4:28
Commandment IX Romans 13:9
Commandment X Colossians 3:5
The Reformers made it a point to emphasize the need for the Ten Commandments in Christian growth and discipleship.
John Calvin (1509-1564) says that “even the believers have need of the law.”
Calvin teaches that the moral law helps the believers in two ways:
(a) to make daily progress in doing the will of God, and
(b) to encourage the believer how to live a life of obedience.
Calvin quotes Psalm 1:2 that a Christian’s “delight is in the law of the Lord” and Psalm 19:7 that “the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”
Martin Luther (1483-1546), the original pioneer of the Reformation, fought with those who despised the Ten Commandments.
He coined the term, “antinomianism,” which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “a belief that Christians are released by grace from obeying moral laws.”
This was the first major theological controversy in Protestant history.
In 1577, to counter the antinomians who were rubbishing the Ten Commandments, the Lutherans wrote in the Formula of Concord the following statements:
“Thereafter the Holy Ghost employs the law so as to teach the regenerate from it, and to point out and show them in the Ten Commandments what is ‘the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God’ (Rom. 12:2) and ‘what good works God hath before ordained that they should walk in’ (Eph. 2:10).”
To the Reformers, the Ten Commandments was an absolute necessity for sanctification and discipleship.
As such, its validity and importance was repeatedly emphasized in documents like:
Helvetic Confession of the Reformed Church of Zurich (1566).
39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England (1571).
Irish Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (1615).
Methodist Articles of Religion (1784).
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).
Savoy Declaration of the Congregational Churches (1658).
Baptist Confession of Philadelphia (1688).
French Confession of Faith (1559).
Belgic Confession (1561).
Scottish Confession of Faith (1559).
The Wittenberg Confession (16th Century).
As you can see, the Ten Commandments are viewed as vitally important to practically all mainstream, orthodox, Bible-believing churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Evangelical, Charismatic and Pentecostal churches.
The truth be told, supporters of the Ten Commandments are in the abundance.
In his June 21, 2009 interview with Seattle Post, Dr. Billy Graham gives his view on why we need the Ten Commandments.
Dr. Graham says,
“We don’t keep the Ten Commandments in order to be saved; we keep them because we want to please God and bring honor to Him by the way we live. Jesus said, ‘If you love me, you will obey what I command’ (John 14:15).”