Joseph Prince’s Antinomian teaching against the Ten Commandments is seen by John Wesley to be Satanic & a Heresy – By Rev George Ong (Dated 7 July 2023)
John Wesley, considers Antinomianism,
the doctrine that Joseph Prince preaches,
not only to be a heresy
but the worst of all heresies.
This is the third article in a series of 3.
I featured the first article, titled,
“Joseph Prince’s Antinomian heresy about Ten Commandments is against the teachings of Martin Luther.”
If you have missed reading it,
Please click on the link below to read:
I featured the second article, titled,
“Joseph Prince is cursed by John Calvin for preaching Antinomianism and against the Ten Commandments.”
If you have missed reading it,
Please click on the link below to read:
This is an extract from the Article:
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Q. 18. Have we not also leaned towards Antinomianism?
A. We are afraid we have.
Q. 19. What is Antinomianism?
A. The doctrine which makes void the law through faith.
Q. 20. What are the main pillars hereof?
A.
(1.) That Christ abolished the moral law.
(2.) That therefore Christians are not obliged to observe it.
(3.) That one branch of Christian liberty is, liberty from obeying the commandments of God.”
George Ong’s comments:
What John Wesley had described
about what constitutes Antinomianism
is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.
Joseph Prince’s core teaching is that
with the dawning of grace,
the Ten Commandments have been annulled,
and are no longer binding on New Covenant believers.
Hence, Joseph Prince can never deny
that he is an Antinomian,
which he shamelessly tried and lied,
when John Wesley has clearly described
the core of what Antinomianism is,
and the core Antinomian teachings of Joseph Prince
fit the bill entirely.
(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, Joseph Prince said;
Please click here to view the 1-minute video:
“Because only the Ten Commandments;
some people say we are not under law
in terms of the ceremonial law,
in terms of the feasts,
in terms of those things that are the 613 commandments
that is in the law of Moses,
but we are still under the Ten Commandments.
Actually, it is the opposite.”
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets.
I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away,
one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Law
till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these Commandments,
and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;
but whoever does and teaches them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say to you, that unless your righteousness
exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:17-20)
Please note the following
were written by John Wesley in his time,
in the 1700s,
and hence, the English expressions
may sound a little quaint to many.
In ‘John Wesley’s Sermons, An Anthology, Edited by Albert C. Outler & Richard P. Heitzenrater,’ Wesley said:
“Sermon 25
1748
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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For verily I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17-20
“2. And ‘tis not improbable some might hope it was so,
that he (Jesus) was abolishing the old religion
and bringing in another,
one which they might flatter themselves
would be an easier way to heaven.
But our Lord refutes in these words
both the vain hopes of the one
and the groundless calumnies (slanders) of the other.
I shall consider them in the same order as they lie,
taking each verse for a distinct head of discourse.
I.1. 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.
II.1. ‘For verily I say unto you’ (a solemn preface, which denotes both the importance and certainty of what is spoken), ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.’
‘One jot’ – it is literally, not one iota, not the most inconsiderable vowel; ‘or one tittle’, one corner, or point of a consonant.
It is a proverbial expression which signifies
that no one commandment contained in the moral law,
nor the least part of one,
however inconsiderable it might seem,
should ever be disannulled.”
“2. From all this we may learn
that there is no contrariety (contradiction) at all
between the law and the gospel;
that there is no need for the law to pass away
in order to the establishing of the gospel.
Indeed, neither of them supersedes the other,
but they agree perfectly well together.
Yea, the very same words,
considered in different respects,
are parts both of the law and of the gospel.”
“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.
John Wesley said that such a teaching
comes from those who want an easier way to heaven
– that there is no need of obeying God’s commandments.
This is exactly the hallmark of Joseph Prince’s teachings
– easy Christianity and cheap grace.
But what’s most damaging
is that John Wesley said that such a teaching
– that the moral law in the Ten Commandments
have 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 Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Q. 18. Have we not also leaned towards Antinomianism?
A. We are afraid we have.
Q. 19. What is Antinomianism?
A. The doctrine which makes void the law through faith.
Q. 20. What are the main pillars hereof?
A.
(1.) That Christ abolished the moral law.
(2.) That therefore Christians are not obliged to observe it.
(3.) That one branch of Christian liberty is, liberty from obeying the commandments of God.”
George Ong’s comments:
What John Wesley had described
about what constitutes Antinomianism
is exactly what Joseph Prince teaches.
Joseph Prince’s core teaching is that
with the dawning of grace,
the Ten Commandments have been annulled,
and are no longer binding on New Covenant believers.
Hence, Joseph Prince can never deny
that he is an Antinomian,
which he shamelessly tried and lied,
when John Wesley has clearly described
the core of what Antinomianism is,
and the core Antinomian teachings of Joseph Prince
fit the bill entirely.
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Q. 22. Does not the truth of the gospel lie very near
… to … Antinomianism?
A. Indeed it does;
as it were, within a hair’s breadth:”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley wrote that
though Antinomianism is of Satan,
the teachings lie very near the true gospel.
This is what is absolutely dangerous.
Indeed, Joseph Prince’s Antinomian gospel
sounds like the true gospel;
it sounds like the Reformation doctrine.
That’s why Prince can deceive the masses.
I’m sure many of you have heard the saying of Charles Spurgeon:
“Discernment is not simply a matter
of telling the difference
between what is right and wrong;
rather it is the difference between right
and almost right.”
Let me contribute my own saying,
“Joseph Prince’s Antinomian doctrine
which is almost right,
is deadly wrong.”
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 8, Addresses, Essays, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Q. 38. Have not some of us been led off from practical preaching
by what was called preaching Christ?
A. Indeed we have.
The most effectual way of preaching Christ,
is to preach him in all his offices,
and to declare his law as well as his gospel,
both to believers and unbelievers.
Let us strongly and closely insist upon
inward and outward holiness, in all its branches.”
George Ong’s comments:
The above is a clear example
of the ‘almost right’ teaching of Joseph Prince.
Joseph Prince always claims that he is preaching Christ;
that he is always talking about Jesus,
which sounds almost right.
But what is deadly wrong
is that he went on to teach
that there is no place
for the preaching of the law
in gospel-preaching.
This is refuted by John Wesley,
who insisted that both the law and the gospel
ought to be preached
to both believers and unbelievers.
John Wesley is not the only one who holds this view.
Please see below for many other men of God,
who hold the same view too.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760, by John Wesley,’ 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.
Yet all are not lost; a few are still left,
“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.””
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, by John Wesley,’ 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 preaches a single sermon on sanctification
in his 30 years of preaching ministry
because he doesn’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, by John Wesley,’ 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, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Sat. 19. – In the evening I preached at Birmingham, and at eight in the morning.
At noon, I preached on Bramwick-Heath; and, the Room being far too small, stood in Mr. Wiley’s courtyard,
notwithstanding the keen northeast wind.
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, by John Wesley,’ 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 is strongly implying
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 Works of John Wesley, Volume 4, Journals Sept 13, 1773 – Oct 24, 1790, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Tues. 12. – Joseph Bradford preached at five in the morning.
I preached in the new House about six in the evening,
and guarded them against
that deadly Antinomianism
which has so often choked the good seed here.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley saw that the Antinomian ‘gospel’
as deadly to listeners.
And Wesley takes it as his responsibility
to guard the people against the doctrine.
May every Pastor,
especially the Methodist Pastors of Singapore,
follow the example of John Wesley
to guard their flock
against the Antinomian influences of Joseph Prince.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 11, Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“(2.) You have near you
still more dangerous enemies than these,
– Antinomians, whether German or English;
who, when any Christian practice is enforced,
come in with the cuckoo’s note,
“The law, the law!”
and, while they themselves glory in their shame
make you ashamed of what should be your glory.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley called the Antinomians,
not only as enemies but dangerous enemies.
We don’t call fellow believers enemies, do we?
We only called Satan and his cohorts,
such as the Antinomians as enemies,
as they chose to come under
the power of the devil himself
and do his purpose of destroying the church,
through the deadly Antinomian heresy.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 14, Grammars, Music, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“TO THE READER.
I HAD not heard that there was such a book in the world as Mr. Baxter’s “Aphorisms of Justification,”
when it was sent to me by a bookseller to whom I had sent for another tract on the same subject:
But before I had read many pages therein,
I saw the wise providence of God;
and soon determined (notwithstanding a few expressions which I do not altogether approve of)
to reprint the substance thereof, in as small a compass, and at as low a price, as possible.
O may He who hath so solemnly declared,
“Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets:
Verily I say unto you,
Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law,
till heaven and earth pass away,”
– give the same blessing to this little treatise now as he did near a hundred years ago!
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!”
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE,
JOHN WESLEY.
March 25, 1745”
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) by John Wesley,’ 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 heresies
which are equally deadly
– Legalism, which the Pharisees are guilty of,
and Antinomianism, which is Joseph Prince’s core teachings.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Thur. 22. – We had our first watch-night at the Tabernacle;
at which I could not but observe,
though I preached the Law
from the beginning of my sermon to the end,
yet many were exceedingly comforted.
So plain it is that God can send either terror or comfort
to the heart, by whatever means it pleaseth him.”
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.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 11, Thoughts, Addresses, Prayers, Letters, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Some think, preaching the law only;
others, preaching the gospel only.
I think, neither the one nor the other;
but duly mixing both, in every place,
if not in every sermon.”
“Thus, the law not only convicts the unbeliever,
and enlightens the believing soul,
but also conveys food to a believer;
sustains and increases his spiritual life and strength.”
“And all this, I conceive,
is clearly declared in one single passage of Scripture:
– “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey, and the honeycomb.”
They are both food and medicine;
they both refresh, strengthen, and nourish the soul.
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley’s view that the law comforts
is indeed, anchored on the scriptures.
Truly, the law that is sweeter than honey
brings refreshment, strengthening and nourishing
for the soul.
So, never again must you ever listen
to the evil lie of Joseph Prince
that the moral law in the Ten Commandments
condemns, kills and brings about our death.
In ‘The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 2, Journals 1745-1760, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“Tues, 12.
… Both in the evening and the following morning
I preached the Law
as well as the Gospel.”
John Wesley is not the only one who champions
that we must not only preach the gospel
but we must also preach the law.
Martin Luther said,
“The first duty of the gospel preacher
is to declare God’s law and show the nature of sin
because it will act as a schoolmaster
and bring him to everlasting life
which is in Jesus Christ.”
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in ‘Exposition of Romans chapter 5, Assurance, Page 305,’ said:
“That is why I emphasized that
if there is not an adequate preaching of the Law
there will never be a true conception of grace and of salvation.
… We have neglected the law-work,
we have been too anxious to hurry people
into some kind of ‘decision’.”
John Wycliffe said,
“The highest service to which a man may attain on earth
is to preach the law of God.”
John Stott, in ‘The Message of Galatians’ (BST), Page 93, wrote:
“We must never bypass the law
and come straight to the gospel.
To do so is to contradict the plan of God
in biblical history.
Is this not why the gospel is unappreciated today?
Some ignore it, others ridicule it.
So in our modern evangelism,
we cast our pearls
(costliest pearl being the gospel)
before swine.
People cannot see the beauty of the pearl,
because they have no conception of the filth of the pigsty.
No man has ever appreciated the gospel
until the law has first revealed him to himself.
It is only against the inky blackness of the night sky
that the stars begin to appear,
and it is only against the dark background of sin and judgment
that the gospel shines forth.
… Not until the law has driven us to despair of ourselves
will we ever believe in Jesus.
Not until the law has humbled us even to hell
will we turn to the gospel to raise us to heaven.”
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.”
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.”
John MacArthur in one of his sermons, wrote,
“The rich young ruler asked Jesus which commandments he should keep.
The Lord responded by giving him the second half of the Ten Commandments:
“You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.” And then He adds, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 19:18-19).
… But the significant thing to note is that
Jesus preached law to him.
We have no business preaching grace to people
who do not understand the implications of God’s law.
It is meaningless to expound on grace to someone
who does not know the divine demand for righteousness.
Those who do not even sense their own guilt
cannot possibly comprehend God’s mercy.
You cannot preach a gospel of grace to someone
who has not heard that
God requires obedience and punishes disobedience.”
John Wesley wrote,
“Without the Law,
the gospel is powerless;
it leaves the lost in the dark
about their sin and its deadly consequences.”
John Wesley also wrote,
“Before I preach love, mercy and grace,
I must preach sin, law and judgement.”
Let me reiterate what three of these great men of God had written,
which have grave implications for Joseph Prince.
Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote,
“That is why I emphasized that
if there is not an adequate preaching of the Law
there will never be a true conception of grace and of salvation.”
What Joseph Prince does is even worse
– he allows no law in the preaching of the gospel.
By what Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote,
this means that the people
whom Joseph Prince is preaching his no-law gospel,
do not have a true conception of grace and salvation.
“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.”
What Charles Spurgeon is implying is that
the results that come from a no-law gospel preaching
as it is in the case of Joseph Prince,
is all a futile exercise
as most of these results aren’t genuine in the first place.
Charles Finney wrote,
“Evermore the law
must prepare the way for the gospel.
To overlook this…
to fill the Church with false converts…”
Joseph Prince may boast about the many souls he has saved
through his ‘all-grace-no-law’ gospel preaching.
He may boast about the explosive growth of his church,
now being the biggest in Singapore.
But according to what Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Charles Spurgeon
and Charles Finney had written,
it could all be an empty boast, amounting to nothing.
Joseph Prince’s easy-believism and a no-law gospel
may have brought in the numbers.
But the crucial question to ask is,
how many of these large numbers of converts or attendees at his church
are really true converts or are they actually false converts?
In ‘The Works of John Wesley, Volume 9, Letters and Essays, by John Wesley,’ Wesley wrote:
“A LETTER
THE REVEREND MR. BALLY, OF CORK.
Reverend Sir,
Limerick, June 8, 1750.
1. WHY do you not subscribe your name to a performance so perfectly agreeing, both as to the matter and form,
with the sermons you have been occasionally preaching for more than a year last past?
As to your seeming to disclaim it by saying once and again, “I am but a plain, simple man;” and,
“The doctrine you teach
is only a revival of the old Antinomian heresy…
I presume it is only a pious fraud.”
George Ong’s comments:
John Wesley categorically calls Antinomianism
a heresy and pious fraud.
In ‘The John Wesley Biography Collection, By Rev Richard Green,’ he wrote:
“A far more serious trouble to Wesley
than any personal affliction
was the antinomianism
which threatened his societies (churches)
with mortal disease.
He was ever awake to the dangers
which arise from the perversions of evangelical doctrine.
He (Wesley) considered antinomianism
the worst of all heresies.”
In conclusion, if John Wesley, considers Antinomianism,
the doctrine that Joseph Prince preaches,
not only to be a heresy
but the worst of all heresies,
why did a Singapore Methodist Bishop
and a Singapore Presbyterian Pastor
say that Joseph Prince is not a heretic?
I hope all Pastors,
especially the Methodist Pastors in Singapore
would take John Wesley, the foremost of their leaders
as a fine example to follow
and battle against Antinomianism (of Joseph Prince)
which Wesley considers to be the worst of all heresies.
Finally, if Joseph Prince’s Antinomian teaching
that there is no place for the law for New Covenant believers
contradict not only Church Fathers like
Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley,
but also
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott, John Wycliffe,
John MacArthur, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney,
and many others not listed in this article,
how can Joseph Prince be a true preacher of the gospel?
How can he not be a heretic?
Rev George Ong