Millions of current Christians are at risk of spending an eternity in Hell—and few are saying anything about it.

The leading teacher of what I believe to be the most dangerous, widespread heresy in the church today is the extremely popular pastor and teacher Joseph Prince.

Understand, I am extremely careful when it comes to dropping names—the fear of the Lord is all over me even as I write this. In fact, I can’t remember another person I’ve mentioned by name in this fashion in the last several years.

As I said, the fear of the Lord is on me, and when that happens, it sometimes propels me into caution, and at other times into risk. I understand this message put me in the category of risk. However, it’s a risk that’s easily worth it since literally millions of people’s eternities are at risk. I absolutely believe the core message that Joseph Prince teaches will result in shocked, church going, professing Christians entering Hell one day. It’s that serious.

I believe the hyper-grace message could be the end-time deception that will cause millions of people to fall away from God. ~Sid Roth

Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

While we should desire to talk about unity, our common salvation, I don’t believe we can do so on this matter. False-grace is an eternity and salvation issue. It’s not minor, it’s major.

Regarding naming the name of Joseph Prince, Chace Gordon said:

When I first stumbled into the false grace teachings of Joseph Prince, I was deeply grieved over it and sensed a tidal wave of heresy coming to American shores. I felt America was blessed that he was from Singapore, or the pervasive deception would have been even deadlier in America than it currently is, because it gave us time to counteract the error by teaching the Word before he became an American superstar and the false doctrine would expedite the demise of church influence in preserving the culture. I knew of NO ONE (initially)who was speaking out against this false doctrine on a large stage, only quiet murmurings of resistance, or the typical grumblings of denominational critics who despise prosperity, big churches and the Word of Faith movement.

I do not know Joseph Prince personally (although I know many close to him and some of his elders before him, both living and dead), but I became intimately acquainted with his message, and within a few week period, I wrote a detailed refutation of his book “Destined to Reign” and submitted it to fellow ministers whom I have relationship with, and to friends who accepted his teaching and propagated it themselves. My notes eventually became widespread, not because I led a public campaign attacking Joseph Prince, but because it was being privately distributed by other ministers who were also greatly disturbed.

During that time, before publicly denouncing him, I even contacted Joseph Prince Ministries and submitted a copy of my notes to them for them to respond to or correct any false conclusions I may have come to regarding his doctrine. After the typical form letter response, I finally received an email from one of the associate pastors who responded to none of the content itself, only stating that they did not wish to debate for the sake of Christian unity…but none of the grave concerns that I had communicated were addressed or any of the blatant errors apologized for.

Finally, I started to get contacted by pastors who had received copies of my notes given them by friends of friends. I started hearing testimonies of church splits and the like; but I still knew of few who were publicly taking a stand against this message. I did, however, hear of numerous private confrontations by respected ministers, who challenged him on his doctrine but he refused correction. If anything, Joseph Prince dug in his heels and even increased his outlandish unbiblical comments.

It became clear to me that there was grounds here for marking him publicly, as the heresy was widely publicized, damage to the body of Christ was ongoing, even impacting people within my own church congregation, and repentance was refused.

On a positive note, I believe the tide is being turned. When I first became involved with the hyper-grace message controversy, I heard more horror stories than anything else. Now at least, I'm hearing some positive testimonies in the mix of solid grace teaching to counteract the false hope and empty promises of cheap grace.

This is what burns in my spirit day after day. I know I’ve been given a serious mandate to sound the alarms necessary to awaken people out of a slumber that will result in an eternity in Hell.

I ask God often to keep reawakening me to the mandate that originated in an encounter I had with Hell 23 years ago. I will never be the same after that fateful night as the forces of Hell overtook me.

God said very clearly, “John, many in the church will be shocked to find themselves in Hell one day.”

Now, 23 years later, I believe we have stumbled upon a great end time deception that can in fact result in what God warned me about. Church going, hand raising, tithe paying professing Christians who are convinced through false-theologies that they don’t have to deal with their sin…wonderful people who will die in those sins if we don’t warn them.

The fundamental deception in hyper-grace is that all of your future sins are forgiven in advance. ~Dr. Michael Brown

I strongly encourage you to watch the interview of Dr. Michael Brown by Sid Roth here: http://sidroth.org/television/tv-archives/dr-michael-brown

Reggie D. Byrum said:

“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” – Hebrews 4:16
In the view of the hyper-grace camp, why would we even need to do this? Why should we approach the throne of grace to obtain mercy, if past, present and future sins have already been forgiven, if God does not see the sins of a Christian and if Christians do not need to confess or repent of sin?

What is so sad is that people believe that dealing with sin is a negative issue. It is not! It’s glorious! What a privilege to serve a God who will get into our personal space and set us free time and again!

It’s not complex. If we sin and do not repent, we can’t presume to be in Christ Jesus. But, if we do repent, we are in Christ Jesus!

There are so many scriptures that make it clear that sin is a serious issue both before and after making the decision to follow Jesus. How much more clear could the following verse be? This is a salvation/eternity verse, and it’s applicable to Christians:

Matt 6:14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

It’s clear. If we sin (refuse to forgive) we cannot just ignore it. We ourselves won’t be forgiven. Sin will remain in us, and our eternities are threatened.

DESTINED TO REIGN BY JOSEPH PRINCE

Honestly, it’s extremely easy to see the clear heresy that’s in his book—if only we have eyes to see.

I’m going to include a lengthy study by Pastor Chace Gordon below. Before I do, read what he wrote to me earlier today:

When I first wrote the notes refuting Destined to Reign, they were circulated widely and did not have my name attached to them. I was contacted by an elder minister who received an anonymous copy after going through a church split over Joseph Prince. He tracked me down through the person who gave it to him, and told me the story of how he was on a pastors cruise with a handful of copies of my notes on Destined to Reign. He asked another respected minister who was on the cruise what he thought of Joseph Prince. The respected minister defended him adamantly, saying “I've know Joe and ministered in his church every year for 18 years! There's nothing wrong with him!” After taking a look at my notes including quotes from the book, the respected minister exclaimed, “That's heresy! I never read the book but I will now!” The rest of the story is that minister on the cruise ship went on to become one of the ministers who confronted Joseph Prince in person over these matters. Joseph Prince refused to listen; but this man of God is now an outspoken voice against the false grace message.

This was very interesting to me as a highly respected national leader and a good friend mentioned that senior Christian leaders had attempted to bring Joseph Prince under church discipline for his teachings, but he refused to comply.

A THOROUGH REFUTATION OF THE FALSE-GRACE HERESY OF JOSEPH PRINCE

by Pastor Chace Gordon www.cornerstoneworld.org

Quotes from “Destined to Reign”

Quote #1:

“I distinctly heard the voice of the Lord on the inside.  It wasn’t a witness of the Spirit.  It was a voice, and I heard God say this clearly to me:  ‘Son, you are not preaching grace.’  I said, ‘What do you mean, Lord?…’Every time you preach grace, you preach it with a mixture of law.  You attempt to balance grace with the law like many other preachers, and the moment you balance grace, you neutralize it.  You cannot put new wine into old wineskins.  You cannot put grace and law together.  He went on to say, ‘Son, a lot of preachers are not preaching grace the way Apostle Paul preached grace.”

Excerpt from the Foreword, page vii

NOTE:  Paul taught grace and law side-by-side throughout Romans chapters 5-6 for the express purpose of preventing doctrinal confusion.  In fact, the book of Romans uses the word “law” 78 times while only using the word “grace” 24 times.  Hence, teaching the law is often necessary as a basis before one can even begin to teach grace!  The heart must be convicted and humbled with the law before grace can be received.

The word “law” is referred to in Paul’s epistles 148 times in 108 verses; the word “grace” was used in Paul’s epistles 99 times in 92 verses.  Thus demonstrating that his “grace preaching” was a doctrinal balance of both law & grace.

It is true that the apostle Paul had more to say on the subject of grace than any other New Testament writer.  It even states in Acts 20:24 that testifying to the gospel of grace was the purpose of his life and ministry; however, he, and other New Testament writers, went to great length to keep the grace doctrine from being twisted and perverted as we must do as well.

(See Jude 4, Romans 5:20-6:2; Romans 6:14-16; II Corinthians 6:1; Galatians 1:6-10; Hebrews 10:29-31; II Peter 3:15-18)

Here is a side-by-side comparison of “grace teaching” versus “law teaching” throughout the Bible:

Usage of words in whole Bible (KJV):

The Bible addresses the law approximately three times as much as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 523 times in 459 verses

The word “grace”: used 170 times in 159 verses

Conclusion:  The Bible as a whole has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace.

Usage of words in the New Testament alone (KJV):

The New Testament addresses the law nearly twice as often as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 223 times in 172 verses

The word “grace:” used 131 times in 122 verses

Conclusion:  While the New Testament has more to say on the subject of grace than the Old Testament, the New Testament STILL has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace.

Usage of words in the gospels (KJV):

The gospels address the law eight times as much as they address grace!

The word “law”:  used 41 times in 35 verses

The word “grace”:  used 5 times in 4 verses

Conclusion:  Even though Jesus Himself ushered in the dispensation of grace to the church, the gospels have FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace!

Usage of words in the Book of Acts (KJV):

The Book of Acts addresses the law twice as much as it addresses grace!

The word “law”:  used 22 times in 21 verses

The word “grace”:  used 10 times in 10 verses

Conclusion:  The record of the early church has FAR MORE to say concerning the law than concerning grace!

Conclusion to it all:  There is no Biblical precedent to suggest teaching the law undermines the teaching of grace.  They are complementary doctrines.  In fact, the doctrinal teaching of the law is foundational to receiving the doctrine of grace!

Quote #2:

“It is entirely His [Jesus] effort and His [Jesus] doing.  Our part is to believe on Him and receive all that He has accomplished on our behalf.  Sounds ridiculously simple, one-sided and unfair?  Well, my friend, that is exactly what makes grace, grace!  Grace is only grace when it is undeserved, unearned and unmerited.”

Excerpt from foreword, page x

NOTE: This statement is confusing on several points:

(1)  It confuses God’s grace with a distorted view of God’s mercy.  It also assumes that God’s mercy cancels out God’s justice.  There is nothing “unfair” about God giving us His grace; but there is something infinitely merciful.  How can an infinitely merciful God extend grace to the sinner and not violate His infinite justice?  Through repentance.

Repentance is the place where justice and mercy kiss.  Without justice, mercy becomes cruel.  If the president of the United States, as an act of mercy, decided to pardon our prison population and loose them on society, the innocent would suffer as a result.  However, if a wicked man is truly penitent and puts his faith in God, he can qualify for pardon because he ceases to be a threat to society.  Though the penitent, formerly-wicked man does not deserve pardon, he can receive mercy without compromising justice.  Hence, the criminal does nothing to earn his salvation; yet qualifies for mercy through genuine repentance.

While grace is not something we earn through good works, it is something we must qualify for through repentance.

(2) It assumes grace is exclusively for the undeserving.  It is not.  According to Luke 2:40, Jesus grew in grace.  Under the above definition, we would have to assume that Jesus “growing in grace” as a child means He was sinful during His youth.  This is total heresy and an increasingly common heresy in today’s culture.  While this may seem to be splitting hairs, this small error could lead someone down the path to destruction.

(3) It assumes the operation of grace is the same as its initial impartation.  It concludes that since receiving grace was effortless on our part, walking in grace after it’s received must be effortless as well.  But receiving a free gift by doing nothing to EARN it does not automatically mean you do nothing to USE it!

Ephesians 2:8-9 tell us we are saved by grace and not by works; however verse 10 tells us that we are saved UNTO good works!  Which means, we don’t do works to earn salvation, but once we are saved, by grace—we do good works!  It’s not effortless!

The key difference is this:  doing good works on your own apart from God will not save you; however, after you are saved, you do good works because now you are participating with God!  Grace is what enables that participation.  You still have responsibility.  You still have effort.  The difference is, you are united with Christ and He gives you the strength, a.k.a. grace, to do alongside of Him, what you could never do on your own.

Quote #3:

“Do you realize that most people believe that one needs to work hard to achieve success in life?  The world’s system of success is built on the twin pillars of self-effort and diligence.  There are always some “laws” that you have to abide by, and some “methods and techniques” that you have to keep on practicing before there can be any results.  Most of the time, any result that you may get will start to fade once you cease to follow through with the prescribed methods and steps.  We have been taught to focus on achieving, on doing and on relying on our self-efforts.  We are driven to ‘do, do, do’, forgetting that Christianity is actually ‘done, done, done’.”

Chapter 1, Page 4

NOTE:  Grace doesn’t do away with the Biblical virtue of hard work (See Proverbs 18:9; 20:4, 13; 21:25-26; 24:30-34; 26:13-16; Matthew 5:16; 25:14-30; II Thessalonians 3:10; I Corinthians 9:19; 15:10; II Corinthians 6:1; II Timothy 2:15).  Diligence is still a necessary part of the Christian experience (See John 8:31; Hebrews 11:6; II Peter 1:4-10) and your results WILL fail when you stop being diligent!  (See Galatians 1:6-10; I Timothy 1:5-6, 19; Hebrews 3:6).  “Achieving” is not an evil concept especially when God has provided incentive and guidelines to obey (Deuteronomy 28; Matthew 25:14-30; Philippians 3:14-16; II Timothy 2:3-7; I Corinthians 9:24-27).

The Bible tells us to “do, do, do” because though Christ’s redemptive work on the cross IS “done, done, done” Christians still have a lot left to do (see the Sermon on the Mount, the Great Commission, the Book of ACTS, the book of Titus (whose theme is GOOD WORKS) and the Book of James (whose theme is being DOERS of the Word)!

Grace is incompatible with works of self-righteousness (See Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 2:21; 5:4); but grace is also God’s power working THROUGH you and me because we are cooperating with Him!  (See Ephesians 3:7; Philippians 4:13; Romans 6:1-11; Colossians 2:6).

Quote #4:

“Under the new covenant, we don’t have to keep on asking the Lord…for forgiveness because He has already forgiven us.”

Chapter 1, page 7

NOTE:  While it is true that if you repent of something once, it is not necessary to repent of the same sin twice; however, if you sin again, you must repent—again. “The modern fallacy that judicial forgiveness covers ALL sins, past, present, and future; that God does not impute sins of believers to them; and that God never condemns a saved man for any sins committed, but charges them to the Lord Jesus Christ, is one of the most unscriptural and demon-inspired theories in any church…He will forgive all sins that are confessed to Him, but this does not give the saved man a blank check to continue in sin and live as he pleases without any fear of being held accountable for his sins after he has one time been saved.  Salvation does not include freedom to live in sins of all kinds.  It does not guarantee immunity from hell if one goes back into sins and dies in them.”

–Finis Dake

If Christians had a “blank check” to sin and never had to ask forgiveness after they are saved—why did God tell so many believers to repent in hundreds of scriptures, in both old and new testaments?  Why did Paul go to many of the churches that he planted, that he witnessed their conversions, and that he laid hands on to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit—why did he go to these churches and admonish them to repent—if their sins were forgiven past, present AND future?  Why did John write to believers in I John 1:9 and encourage them to confess their sins if they stopped walking in the light (I John 1:7)?  Why does the book of Revelation warn that your name can be blotted out of the Book of Life if one-time repentance is a blank check for everlasting forgiveness?  Why did Peter say that if a Christian backslides into sin after being delivered—his outcome becomes WORSE?

The truth is grace does MORE than cover our sins or empower us to ignore our pesky consciences.  Grace empowers us to stop sinning and walk in the light (I John 1:7).  I suggest that we don’t sin when walking in the light—we sin when we walk away from it!

Here are several sample scriptures that are examples of how eternal life can be lost and that the saved die again when they commit sin:

Genesis 2:17; Exodus 32:32-33; Leviticus 18:24-30; 26:13-39; Numbers 25:1-8; Deuteronomy 4:23-31; Joshua 7:, 10-12; Judges 2:1-23; I Kings 14:22; II Kings 17:1-17; II Chronicles 36; Isaiah 5:24-25; Jeremiah 2:5-37;  Lamentations 1:8-9; Ezekiel 13:1-23; Hebrews 12:28-29; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; Matthew 7:21; I John 4:8, 12, 16, 21; Galatians 1:6-8; Mark 11:25-26; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Luke 8:13; John 6:66; II Corinthians 5:17; Romans 11:16; Acts 1:20, 25; Colossians 2:8-19; Jude 12-13; II Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; Philippians 3:7-14; I Thessalonians 3:8; James 5:19-20; & II Peter 1:4-10.

Here are several other sample scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now and will not be until the end of a life of holiness:

Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Mark 16:15; Matthew 12:31-32; Acts 5:3, 32; 7:51; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; Matthew 7:13-14; etc.

Here are several more plain scriptures that demonstrate men have to continue to the end to be saved:

Matthew 10:22; Romans 6:21-23; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 6:11-12; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; Hebrews 10:23, 35-39; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; & Matthew 7:13-14.

Here are a few more scriptures that demonstrate the promises and covenants of God are conditional:

John 5:14; John 8:31, 34; Revelation 2:4-5, 10, 13-16, 20-25; 3:1-4, 11, 15-19.

Here are several scriptures concerning faith and faithfulness to the end to be saved:

Acts 14:22; Romans 1:5; 16:26; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38-39; Romans 3:3; Romans 11:20-24; I Corinthians 16:13; II Corinthians 1:24; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:23: I Timothy 1:19; 4:1; II Timothy 3:8; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 4:11; 6:11-12; 10:23-39; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13.

Here are several scriptures about saved men falling into sin and becoming lost:

Luke 8:13; Romans 11:11-24; I Corinthians 10:13; I Timothy 3:6; 6:9-10; Hebrews 6:4-6, 11; II Peter 3:17; Galatians 5:4; Romans 14:4; Jude 20-24; Romans 11:22; Acts 1:25; II Thessalonians 2:3; & Revelation 2:5-6.

Quote #5:

“John 1:17, KJV—‘For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”  Have you noticed that truth is on the side of grace, not the law?’”

Chapter 2, page 12

NOTE:  The point of truth being on the side of grace goes to show that grace must still be tempered with truth.  Are God’s laws “lies” because they were in the Old Testament?  Is “truth” sided AGAINST the law because of its connected usage with grace?  NO!!!  It only shows that LIKE THE LAW, GRACE must still be partnered with TRUTH!

Quote #6:

“Grace is personal and came as a person—the person of Jesus Christ.  The law is hard, cold and impersonal.  You cannot have a relationship with two pieces of stone.  But grace is gentle and warm.  Grace is not a teaching or doctrine.  Grace is a person and you can have a relationship with a person.”

Chapter 2, page 12

NOTE:  Grace—Jesus.  Law—stone.  Grace—warm and fuzzy.  Law—hard and cold.   Grace—person.  Law—doctrine.  Grace—good.  Law—bad.  Interesting use of metaphors; but however you try to distinguish the law from grace you must still recognize that Jesus THROUGH GRACE FULFILLED LAW, as opposed to through grace God looked past His state of lawlessness (how many modern preachers would foolishly characterize grace today).

Quote #7:

“Therefore, when you know and believe that Jesus has fulfilled completely the righteous requirements of the law, the devil cannot use the law to condemn you every time you fail.”

Chapter 2, page 15

NOTE:  The idea suggested here seems to be that a revelation of Christ’s fulfillment of the law removes condemnation; however, it also infers that this revelation will do nothing to prevent ongoing failure.  The main problem with this statement is it leaves the believer condemned to failure while promising a removal of condemnation for his failure.   Must we settle for such cheap grace?  Can we not believe for grace to do more than help us feel better while we fail?  Let’s instead believe God to not only remove the sense of condemnation, but to remove the failure that brings the condemnation!

Quote #8:

“I told my minister friend that I actually do not agree that grace should be a topic in a Bible school’s curriculum.  Grace is not a topic—grace is the gospel…Grace is not a theology.  It is not a subject matter.  It is not a doctrine.  It is a person, and His name is Jesus.”

–Chapter 3, page 24

NOTE:  (Sigh.)  Is this not a self-refuting paragraph?  Is this not a topical & theological book on the doctrine/subject matter of grace?  While there is nothing terrible or wrong with making an association of grace with the person of Christ Jesus, let’s go ahead and make the association of Christ Jesus and the Word made Flesh as well.  You see, studying the Word (even the Old Testament—GASP) actually brings us closer to the person of Jesus.  I suggest that a chief bi-product of this intimacy with the Word made flesh is sound doctrine concerning grace.  I would also suggest that a person who teaches doctrine without acknowledging it as such smells “fishy.”  Sort of like saying, “I am the great and powerful Oz so…ignore the man behind the curtain!” or “Since my doctrine on grace IS Jesus Himself—don’t doubt Jesus by questioning me!”  Nice catch-22.

Quote #9:

“So when they [preachers] see sin, they preach more of the law!  That, my friend, is like adding wood to fire because the strength of sin is the law.  Sin is strengthened when more law is preached!  But the power to have dominion over sin is imparted when more grace is preached!”

Chapter 3, page 26

NOTE:  First, let’s properly understand the context of “the strength of sin is the law” taken from I Corinthians 15:56: “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

Is this verse in any way implying that the law makes people sin MORE, as the author suggests?   What is this verse saying?

First, let’s look at the first part of the verse: “the sting of death is sin”.  What is this saying?  Simply put, sin makes death painful.  No problem there.  The sting of death is sin.  Sin is the sting of death.  In short, sin stings.

Now the second part:  “…and the strength of sin is the law” or, in other words, “and the strength of [the sting of death] is the law.”  So…the law makes the sting of death, a.k.a. sin, hurt more.

Now, is this in any way saying the law makes people sin more?  No, it is saying the law makes people hurt more because the effect of sin is made apparent in their lives.  No different than spanking a child.  Does spanking a child make the child sin more, even though the scriptures recommend it?  You might make the case that giving a spanking provokes a child to sin (if not properly applied), but the purpose of the spanking is for the child to associate their sin with pain.  No more, no less.  The purpose of the law is the same:  to associate sin with pain.

So, preaching the law may be adding wood to the fire, in the sense that the person living in sin who hears it feels its pain to a greater degree, but the sting of sin must be felt before the salve of grace is applied to any purpose.  The law can be prescribed like pouring alcohol on an open cut:  its purpose is not to stop the pain, it’s to treat the wound.  The law and grace work together and this is a necessary partnership—because the greater problem of sin is not that we FEEL it; it’s that we keep doing it!  Grace is then applied and preached to restore the sinner AFTER the sinner not only escapes the pain of sin (felt more intensely through the law) but flees sin itself!  The law brings necessary pain to the unrepentant; then after repentance, grace converts the sinner and the pain of sin, condemnation, and the sin itself, is fully dealt with and removed from a person’s life!

Quote #10:

“They say that God gives you the gift of righteousness, on the condition that you keep the Ten Commandments for the rest of your life to remain righteous.  Now, is this a real gift?  Come on,  when God gave you the gift of righteousness, it was a real gift.  Stop trying to earn it with your own works.  God’s gifts to us are unconditional!”

                                                                                                                             Chapter 3, page 28

NOTE:  The gift God gave us was “righteousness” itself.  If you sin, you reject the gift.  It is a ridiculous and dishonest proposition to suggest that since we were given the gift of righteousness, we are righteous whether we are righteous or not (See the entire book of I John).  Obviously, God’s gifts ARE conditional in the sense that if He gives us the gift of righteousness, we should BE righteous, and not just assert that the gift means we have an unconditional claim on righteousness.

Quote #11:

“My friend, righteousness is a gift because of what Jesus has accomplished on the cross for you.  All your sins—past, present and future—have been washed clean by His precious blood.  You are completely forgiven and from the moment you received Jesus into your life, you will never be held liable for your sins ever again.”

Chapter 3, pages 28-29

NOTE:  Unconditional forgiveness.  Herein lies the root of error that leads to so many heresies.  All of this quote is true save one important point that makes the difference between a truth and a lie:  righteousness is a gift because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross for you.  All your sins—past and present—have been washed clean by His precious blood, and because of grace you don’t have to have a “FUTURE SINS TO BE FORGIVEN” category!  But if future sins happen, your prescription is not denial, it’s found in I John 1:9.

Quote #12:

“…when believers don’t understand that righteousness is a gift, and that it is about ‘right standing’ and not ‘right doing’, they will depend on their own efforts to earn this gift.”

Chapter 3, page 34

NOTE:  Right standing implies right doing.  The debate, I guess would be, is right standing compatible with wrong doing?  I don’t think that’s the kind of right standing God had in mind.

Quote #13:

“My friend, those who believe that God is sometimes angry with them are still living under the old covenant of the law and not under the new covenant of grace.”

Chapter 4, page 38

NOTE:  So the cross was to convert God the Father from his temper problem against sin?  There are numerous New Testament examples that God still gets mad at both sin and sinners, through Jesus example, through the epistles’ doctrine, and through prophetic warnings of the coming wrath of God.  One only needs to read the book of Revelation to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that God still gets angry; and if one reads Revelation 2-3 in particular, they will see that He still gets angry at church people from time to time, even among those He loves who live prior to the tribulation!

Quote #14:

“Schizophrenic teaching that tells you that God is sometimes angry and sometimes happy with you based on your performance is unscriptural and will make you a schizophrenic believer.  It’s time to get out of confusion and to start seeing your God for who He really is.”

Chapter 4, page 48

NOTE:  There is nothing schizophrenic about experiencing a range of emotions for people you love when they perform well or perform badly.  Evidently, the cross not only converted God from His temper problem it saved Him from being schizophrenic and acted as an anti-depressant for mood swings and anxiety.  Now He has only one emotion all the time (at least while the church is here, then after the rapture He will explode in uncontrollable rage after 2000 + years of happy, happy, happy.)

I realize no one would actually ascribe to believe the above paragraph; however, I’m trying to make the point that we sometimes go too far in our analogies about how happy God is with us that we begin to paint an illusion of the nature of God that is very different from His true Person.

Quote #15:

“Soon after the tragedy of September 11 had taken place, some believers publicly declared that God was judging America because of its sins…Come on, when Christians attribute such events to God’s judgment, terrorists would be the first to say, ‘Amen!  Preach it!’  Can you see that something is amiss when both believers and terrorists agree on the same thing?

Chapter 5, page 49

NOTE:  The devil believes in God and divine judgment, why shouldn’t some of his followers?  Can you also see that something is amiss when believers and secular humanists agree to scoff/belittle/patronize the notion of divine judgment?

Quote #16:

“Thousands of people died [referring to 9/11], and many families, friends and loved ones were thrown into grief.  How can that be the work of our loving Father?  Read the Bible for yourself.  It says that God is ‘not willing that any should perish.’”

Chapter 5, page 49

NOTE:  Reading the Bible is always sound advice…in fact, let’s start by reading the rest of the verse cited above:  “[God is] not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”  This verse is in II Peter 3:9, which ironically, is a New Testament verse in the middle of a large passage of scripture dedicated to warning believers about divine judgment.  The theme being that in the last days many would scoff at the coming judgment of God, and that if men don’t repent, even though God wills to save, even though God wills that none should perish, men will still perish as part of divine judgment.

The classic argument being that these verses refer to a future judgment exclusively, and that we are in an interim period where God has (please pardon my crude theological paraphrase):  “lovingly decided to stop being judgmental because of the cross (but will have a relapse after the church is gone and judge again in the future).”

Nevertheless, one would be right in saying these verses refer to a future judgment, they do—but not exclusively.  So one must ask the question:  In this “Age of Grace” (or “justice-free Shangri-La” as the Age of Grace is often described), do men still perish?  They do.  Is the command to repent still applicable to us?  It is.  Did God decide to wink at us and ruthlessly judge everyone else by a different standard?  He did not.  In fact, I Peter 4:17-19 tells us that divine judgment not only still applies to us, it begins with us!

Jesus did not die on the cross so the Father would stop being judgmental.  He did not die on the cross to deliver us from consequences to bad behavior.  He died on the cross to provide a way of escape to those who would repent.  Though we repent, if we sin again (as II Peter 2:19-22 tells us) consequences are reinstated.

We cannot have a loving Father and an unjust one at the same time.  A loving Father punishes evil (or refuses to sanction it), to preserve righteousness in His children.  The Bible instructs natural parents to discipline (and punish, if necessary) their children.  Good parents do that.  Hebrews 12:5-29 tells us that God the Father chastens those He loves.  Revelation 3:19 tells us that Jesus rebukes and chastens those He loves.  I Corinthians 5:1-5 tells us that a church was to surrender one of their members to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit might be saved.  There comes a point when wickedness MUST be judged to preserve righteousness.

One might ask, “how can God be just and merciful at the same time?”  It is simple.  God is just in that He punishes wickedness.  He is merciful in that He forgives and pardons the penitent who turn from their crimes.  If they turn back to their sin, they must renew themselves through true repentance once again.  They are not given a lifetime pass.

Quote #17:

“I have also heard some believers pronouncing, ‘If God does not judge America for all its sins, God has to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.’ Well, let me say this with honor and respect: If God judges America today, He has to apologize to Jesus and what He has accomplished on the cross! My friend, God is not judging America (or any country in the world today).”

Chapter 5, page 49

NOTE:  Proverbs 19:28-29 says the following:

“An ungodly witness scorneth judgment:  and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.  Judgments are prepared for scorners, and stripes for the back of fools.”

Divine judgment is throughout the Old Testament and was a common theme in nearly every book.  That theme was continued through our Lord Jesus in the Gospels when He declared judgment upon men, cities, nations and churches who failed to receive Him.  In fact, Jesus rebuked the religious leaders in Matthew 23:23 for NEGLECTING to teach judgment.  Many of the judgments Christ pronounced took place long after the cross.  The epistles teach and warn concerning divine judgment as well.  Hebrews 6:2 lists “judgment” as a foundational doctrine of Christ, the MILK of the Word for babes!  Yet we arrogantly or presumptuously mock the importance of it and say, “Nah, it doesn’t apply to us!”  FOOLISH!

Quote #18:

“You will never find an example of God punishing a believer for his sins in the new covenant.”

Chapter 5, page 57

NOTE:  Please see the following examples of God punishing believers for their sins in the new covenant:

(1)  Ananias & Saphira—Acts 5:1-14(2)  The Galatian church—Galatians 6:7-8

(3)  The promiscuous church member at Corinth—I Corinthians 5:4-5; II Corinthians 2:6

(4)  Christian brothers who maintain certain sins—I Corinthians 5:9-13

(5)  Hymenaeus & Alexander—I Timothy 1:19-20; II Timothy 4:14

(6)  The younger widows—I Timothy 5:11-15

(7)  Sinning brothers—I Timothy 5:20

(8)  Believers who become lovers of money—I Timothy 6:9-10

(9)  Demas—II Timothy 4:10 (see also Colossians 4:14  & Philemon 24 for confirmation he was not only a believer, but a one-time preacher)

(10)  Huge segments of the seven churches in Asia (Revelation 2-3)

Also note God’s divine judgment illustrated in the death of Herod (Acts 12:23), Elymas the sorcerer being struck with blindness (Acts 13:8-12) and God’s use of civil government to punish evil (Romans 13:1-6).

Quote #19:

“Did Jesus die on the cross to free us from committing sinful actions or harboring sinful thoughts?  If He did, then allow me to conclude with reverence that He failed.  You and I know fully well that we can still be tempted with sinful thoughts and tempted to commit sinful actions, and there will still be times when we fail.”

–Chapter 5, pages 58-59

NOTE:  To be blunt, this is a most inflammatory, heretical & unbelieving statement which is contrary to all the Word of God.  Yet, it is what so many preachers believe without saying it so recklessly.

The simple answer is “YES”; Jesus DID die to not only free us from our sins, but from our iniquities (bent towards sin) as well (Isaiah 53:5).  He didn’t just forgive us for the sins we commit.  His grace delivers us not only from the sins we commit; but from the sin nature that accompanies sin.  II Peter 1:4-10 tells us how we can stay free from sin.  I John 1:8-9 says that if we have fellowship with God but continue to walk in darkness (continue sinning) we lie.  Then it also reveals that we are cleansed and maintain freedom from sin by walking in the light.  We don’t sin as believers when we walk in the light; we sin when we walk away from it.  In which case, we do as I John 1:9 instructs, we repent and get back in the light!

Let me also say that temptation itself is not sin.  Jesus was tempted and remained sinless.  Wrong thoughts or suggestions of the devil don’t become transgressions unless acted upon (James 1:14-15).  Wrong thoughts or suggestions of the devil don’t become iniquities unless brooded about and not cast down (II Corinthians 10:5).

Grace that merely “helps sinners not transgress as much as before” is just cheap.  You don’t need salvation for that, a monastery will suffice.  Grace that not only removes sin, condemnation, & the slavery to keep committing it is the only grace worth having!  Everything else is a cheap counterfeit!  God help our unbelief!!!

Quote #20:

“…I was told that the more I knew, the more God would hold me accountable, and my punishment for falling short of His expectations would be more severe than someone who knew less…I was also taught that the closer I drew to God, the more trials and tribulations I would experience…As I grew in the Lord, He opened my eyes and I realized that the teachings that I had received were not true.”

Chapter 6, pages 61-62

NOTE:  These teachings are not lies—they are common sense.  When a believer matures, more is expected of him (James 3:1); You expect more from adults than babies because part of maturity is taking responsibility (Hebrews 5:11-14)—and yes, the more you mature, the greater trials you will face!  Adults tend to have bigger trials than babies.  This is not a fearful thing though, because adults are equipped to handle it.  The premise here is that teaching these things causes believers to shun intimacy with God for fear of greater expectations upon themselves.  Don’t worry!  If a person chooses to stay a spiritual baby to avoid growth pains they can and will.  Personally, I prefer to grow up and tap into the destiny that God has for me.  I want God to trust me to rise to His expectations because of His grace and my partnership with Jesus Christ.

Quote #21:

“You see, faith does not come by simply hearing the word of God because the word of God would encompass everything in the Bible, including the law of Moses.  There is no impartation of faith when you hear the Ten Commandments preached.  Faith only comes by hearing the word of Christ…Only when Christ is preached will faith be imparted.”

Chapter 7, page 75

NOTE:  The complexities of doctrinal confusion in this statement are so vast it is difficult to give a simple refutation.  Nevertheless, it raises some important questions for Pastor Prince:

(1)  How is “the Word of God” out of harmony with “the Word of Christ” in your estimation that makes it necessary to make this distinction?

(2)  Since the Word of God encompasses everything in the Bible, but the Word of Christ does not, which words belong to Christ, and which do not?

(3)  If the law of Moses is God-inspired, why is it not Christ-inspired as well?  Is there strife in the Godhead, or did Jesus convert the Father/Holy Spirit at the cross?

(4)  Why do only the words of Christ produce faith, but not the words of the Father or the Holy Spirit?

(5)  If the law of Moses came from God, but didn’t produce faith in them that heard it, why did so many people try to obey something they had no capacity to believe?

(6)  If the law of Moses doesn’t produce faith, why did Israel experience so many revivals when it was taught to the people (II Kings 22-23; Nehemiah 8-10)?

(7) If the Ten Commandments don’t produce faith, why has our nation sunk further into spiritual darkness since we’ve removed it from our schools, courthouses and public places?

In summary, splitting hairs between “Word of God” verses “Word of Christ” is absurd since Jesus was called “the Word made Flesh (John 1:14)”  and was in the beginning WITH God AS God called “The Word of God (John 1:1).”  Nothing that Christ ever said is out of harmony with the Father or the Holy Spirit, because they are one (I John 5:7).   All of the Word of God contains and produces faith, not just words pertaining directly to Christ Himself (see Hebrews 11:3 & Romans 4:17 for examples).  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, is considered the inerrant Word of God and is necessary for edification of the believer (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:19-21).  No scripture is subject to private interpretation, nor is it wise to sift through scripture saying, “this is the word of Christ—this is not.”  Hebrews chapter 11 lists many who are referred to as “heroes of faith” who knew no distinction between “word of God” verses “word of Christ”, yet received faith from God’s Word anyway.

Just for clarification, it is right and proper to teach and preach based on a revelation of Christ (like Paul did, Galatians 1:11-12) and hearing the Word of God/Word of Christ IS the method that faith comes.  However, a revelation of Christ—or an understanding of the words of Christ—are not limited to a hand-picked selection of New Testament verses.  The Word of Christ encompasses all of the Bible and INCLUDES THE LAW OF MOSES!

Quote #22:

“I now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a Christian cannot commit the unpardonable sin.”

Chapter 8, page 90

NOTE:  Here are several sample scriptures that are examples of how eternal life can be lost and that the saved die again when they commit sin:

Genesis 2:17; Exodus 32:32-33; Leviticus 18:24-30; 26:13-39; Numbers 25:1-8; Deuteronomy 4:23-31; Joshua 7:, 10-12; Judges 2:1-23; I Kings 14:22; II Kings 17:1-17; II Chronicles 36; Isaiah 5:24-25; Jeremiah 2:5-37;  Lamentations 1:8-9; Ezekiel 13:1-23; Hebrews 12:28-29; Psalm 69:28; Revelation 3:5; Matthew 7:21; I John 4:8, 12, 16, 21; Galatians 1:6-8; Mark 11:25-26; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Luke 8:13; John 6:66; II Corinthians 5:17; Romans 11:16; Acts 1:20, 25; Colossians 2:8-19; Jude 12-13; II Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16; Philippians 3:7-14; I Thessalonians 3:8; James 5:19-20; & II Peter 1:4-10.

Here are several other sample scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now and will not be until the end of a life of holiness:

Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-29; Mark 16:15; Matthew 12:31-32; Acts 5:3, 32; 7:51; I Corinthians 3:16-17; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; Matthew 7:13-14; etc.

Here are several more plain scriptures that demonstrate men have to continue to the end to be saved:

Matthew 10:22; Romans 6:21-23; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 6:11-12; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; Hebrews 10:23, 35-39; Mark 10:29-30; Luke 18:29-30; Matthew 19:28-29; Romans 2:7; Romans 6:21-23; Romans 5:21; Galatians 6:7-8; I Timothy 1:16; I Timothy 4:8; I Timothy 6:12, 19; Titus 1:2; 3:7; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13; 3:7; I John 2:25; Jude 20-24; Daniel 12:2; John 5:28; Matthew 25:46; & Matthew 7:13-14.

Here are several scriptures concerning faith and faithfulness to the end to be saved:

Acts 14:22; Romans 1:5; 16:26; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38-39; Romans 3:3; Romans 11:20-24; I Corinthians 16:13; II Corinthians 1:24; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:23: I Timothy 1:19; 4:1; II Timothy 3:8; Hebrews 3:6, 12-14; 4:11; 6:11-12; 10:23-39; I Peter 1:5, 9, 13.

Here are several scriptures about saved men falling into sin and becoming lost:

Luke 8:13; Romans 11:11-24; I Corinthians 10:13; I Timothy 3:6; 6:9-10; Hebrews 6:4-6, 11; II Peter 3:17; Galatians 5:4; Romans 14:4; Jude 20-24; Romans 11:22; Acts 1:25; II Thessalonians 2:3; & Revelation 2:5-6.

Quote #23:

“A believer has already received the gift of eternal life and will never be “subject to eternal condemnation.”

Chapter 8, page 92

NOTE:  See scriptures from previous quote.  Particularly the scriptures that reveal eternal life is not an eternal possession now.

Quote #24:

“…some of the words which Jesus spoke in the four gospels…are part of the old covenant.  They were spoken before the cross as He had not yet died.  The new covenant only beginsafter the cross, when the Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost.”

Chapter 8, page 92

NOTE:  (Sigh).  The gospels are the foundation for the new covenant; not merely the capstone for the old.  Jesus didn’t come to earth to teach us about the old covenant.  He certainly didn’t prep His disciples, “Guys, I want you to record the things I say and do and then ignore it because after I’m gone—none of it applies to you anyway.  A man named Paul will come who will teach you what to believe about me.  For now, I want it to be a surprise, so just keep bumbling around like idiots until I’m long gone.”

None of the gospels were written so Jesus could propagate the old covenant!  The gospel of Matthew could probably be considered the most “Old Testament” of the four gospels because it was written to Jews; and yet, the subject of Matthew from the first chapter until the last is the kingdom of heaven (of which the church is a part).  Everything about this gospel is revolutionary, and was written to convert Jews to Christianity.  Why would this gospel be used to evangelize if it was merely an extension of the Old Testament?  It wouldn’t.

The gospel of Mark and Luke were written to evangelize Romans and Greeks.  Why would they need Old Testament teachings of Jesus?  I thought evangelizing Gentile nations was a mark of the new covenant, not the old!

For Pete’s sake, the gospel of John was written to the church!

Now Jesus DID say that there were things He could not teach them yet because they were not ready to bear it; however, John 14:26 said that one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit when He comes is: “TO REMIND THE DISCIPLES WHAT JESUS TAUGHT! “  We all need that reminder.

Quote #25:

“Not everything that Jesus said was spoken to the church.  Paul’s letters were written to the church and are thus for our benefit today.  God raised him up to write the words of the ascended Jesus…That is why, when it comes to reading the Bible, I always encourage new believers in our church to begin with the letters of Paul.  (Many new believers like to start with the book of Revelation or Genesis, without first getting a foundation in the gospel of grace through reading the letters of Paul.)”

Chapter 8, page 94

NOTE:  If Paul had all the post-cross doctrine and revelation we need, why would the church need Jesus’ pre-cross teaching?  Why did Paul say we have the “mind of Christ” if all we need is the “mind of Paul?”

The answer is:  our salvation starts with Jesus, not Paul (See I Corinthians 1:13).  Our doctrine starts with Jesus, not Paul.  Our chief example of compassion, ministry, authority and power is Jesus Himself—not Paul.  Paul’s ministry began with a revelation of Jesus, not Paul coming to self-actualization.  Christ showed us how we can live through His own example.  He taught us what to believe through His own words.  When Pentecost came, a foundation of the Word in new covenant terms through the Word made Flesh was already laid.  The disciples didn’t have to make up their own doctrines after Jesus left!  They taught the good NEWS—that is, what Christ Himself had ALREADY revealed to them!

Jesus didn’t die to save His own doctrine (or the plethora of other things in this book that are wrongfully attributed to the cross)!  He’s the same yesterday, today, & forever!

Quote #26:

“Listen carefully:  We don’t have to confess our sins in order to be forgiven.  We confess our sins because we are already forgiven…I’m talking about being open with God…So confession in the new covenant is just being honest about your failures and your humanity.  It is the result of being forgiven and not something you do in order to be forgiven.”

Chapter 9, page 104

NOTE:  There is no scriptural basis for this statement anywhere and there are literally hundreds of verses to the contrary.  The term “confession” is linked to the idea of repentance, and there is no example in scripture where we are told repentance is “about being open with God” and is not necessary for forgiveness.  This statement is just another way to substantiate an already bogus doctrine that misunderstands the work of the cross.

Quote #27:

“I took I John 1:9 to the limit and it nearly drove me insane.  But what does I John 1:9 really say and to whom was it actually written?…People have actually taken this verse and built a whole doctrine around it when in actually, chapter 1 of I John was written to the Gnostics, who were unbelievers.”

Chapter 9, page 106

NOTE:  The book of I John was written as one single, cohesive letter given to one primary audience.  It is cohesive and thematic throughout and to separate the first chapter from the rest of the book as having a different audience is either dishonest, willfully ignorant or naïve at best.

So the question arises, to whom was the letter written?  If the first chapter was written to the Gnostics, then the whole book was written to Gnostics.  If the first chapter was written to the Gnostics, and then beginning in chapter two it was written to the church (as Pastor Prince later suggests), then why is chapter one included in the same letter, particularly if his letter contained no original chapter divisions, and again if it was not intended for the audience of chapter two and forward?

(I think the reason Pastor Prince insists that the first chapter only is written to Gnostics, is because the rest of the letter is indisputably written to a local assembly of Christian believers that were intimately connected with the apostle John because of the frequent usage of the phrase “my little children” that begins in the opening of chapter two.)

It makes no sense for John to write a letter to Gnostics in the opening and then the church later on.  That would be like my father, Pastor Larry, writing a letter to a church that belongs to one of his spiritual sons in the ministry, and including in the opening paragraph an address exclusively for Mormons.

If Christians are to ignore the first chapter because it doesn’t apply to them, why did John open with it?  If it was necessary to address the local Gnostics, why didn’t John put it on the end of the book, and give a disclaimer:  “Oh yeah, will you send this SEPARATE note to the Gnostics, and remember, YOU don’t need to confess your sins, if you do, you aren’t believing in the finished work of the cross!”

Perhaps Pastor Prince meant that the Gnostics addressed in the first chapter were part of the same congregation/audience—odd, but perhaps.  But if that was the case, why didn’t John single them out, like Paul did in many of his letters, when he was addressing specific people or referring to a particular group of people within a church body?

Regardless, the evidence is overwhelming that the book of I John fits together beautifully and flows perfectly without having to switch audiences after the introductory comments of the first chapter.

Quote #28:

“If you really believe that you need to confess all your sins to be forgiven, do you know what you would be doing?  You would be confessing your sins ALL THE TIME!”

Chapter 9, page 107

NOTE:  This statement just comes down to a misunderstanding of confession of sins.  I will explain in a couple points:

(1)  As previously mentioned, confession of sins is inextricably linked to the act of repentance (which is an inward and outward turn from sin).  Now, if your definition of grace is, “the power to continue to sin (less often) but free of the associative feelings of condemnation”, then yes, you would be confessing all the time because your faith is set on needing perpetual bailout from God.  BUT, if your definition of grace, at least in part, is “the power to stop sinning,” then no, you would not be confessing all the time because the power of grace keeps you from perpetual sin, setting you free from not only your transgressions, but your iniquities (habitual sins, and inclinations toward sin)!

(2)  Secondly, confession is more than parroting words.  It is also more than a ritualistic recitation of sin.  Confession, in the Greek is the word “homologeo” and it means more than a recitation of words.  It could be described as entering a covenant or binding agreement with God to renounce sin—aligning your thinking, believing, convictions and viewpoints with God Himself—talking the same language!  When you see confession as strictly lip service to repentance, you miss the point and power of confession.  When you see confession as a covenant with God to cease from sin and be aligned together with Him against sin, then you understand confession not only deals with the act of sin, it deals with the propensity to sin as well.

(I recommend you see the Strong’s Concordance and the Greek word studies of Rick Renner for a better understanding of confession).

Quote #29:

“Let’s not build a whole doctrine on one verse.  If confession of sins is vital for your forgiveness, then Apostle Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, has done us a great injustice because he did not mention it even once—not once—in any of his letters to the church.”

Chapter 9, page 107

NOTE: First, we dismissed the Old Testament as relevant for doctrine; then we dismissed Jesus and the gospels as relevant for doctrine; now we dismiss the relevancy of John on the simple grounds that John is NOT Paul, the apostle of grace.  At this rate, we can eventually dismiss the whole Bible because we spend so much time disqualifying its relevancy of application from one portion to another, we might as well join the Mormon church!

Do we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God or don’t we?  Do we believe the books of the Bible are flawless and in perfect harmony together or don’t we?  Then let us STOP suggesting that the vast majority of the Bible, including the gospels and other New Testament writers, are out of step with the Pauline revelation!

But for the sake of clarity, Paul taught the same doctrine as Jesus and John.  When we talk about confession of sins, we are talking about repentance.  This is not a separate and unusual doctrine that Paul omitted because it wasn’t relevant.  Paul taught and demonstrated the doctrine of repentance throughout his letters and the Book of Acts.  He referred to the doctrine of repentance as foundational doctrine for believers.  He categorized it as “milk”, as “elementary”, as “first principle” (see Hebrews 5:11-6:1).  There are plenty of both Old and New Testament verses that confirm the clear link between confession of sin and repentance.

On the same token, if confession of sins is NOT vital for forgiveness, then Apostle Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, has done us a great injustice because he did not mention it even once—not once—in any of his letters to the church!  Of course, for him to do so, would have been contrary to all other scripture, and therefore, uninspired by God.

Quote #30:

“When there were people in the Corinthian church living in sin, he [Paul] did not say, ‘Go and confess your sins.’  Instead, he reminded them of their righteousness, saying, ‘Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you?’  Notice that in spite of their sins, Paul still considered them temples of the Holy Spirit and he reminded them of this truth.”

Chapter 9, page 107

NOTE: Paul was not reminding them of their righteousness—they weren’t (Is this hard?).  He was reminding them of their purpose.  He was reminding them they were made to actually be righteous.

Quote #31:

“When we understand this verse [I John 1:7], we realize that even when we sin, we sin in the realm of light!  So, if we sin in the light, we are cleansed in the light, and we are kept in the light.  This idea of us going into darkness when we sin is not from the Bible.”

Chapter 9, page 108

NOTE:  The idea of us going into darkness when we sin CAME FROM THE BIBLE!

Let’s read the aforementioned passages together (including the skipped over verse 8):

“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”—I John 1:7-9

It says, “if we walk in the light as He is in the light…”  This means walking in the light AS CHRIST WALKS in the light.  Does Christ walk in sin in the light?  I don’t think so!  What are these verses saying?  When you walk in the light, you are cleansed by the blood of Jesus!  If you have not dealt with sin because you deny its presence (or a false grace teacher tells you to ignore it), you are self-deceived.  However, if and when you do sin, you are cleansed through confessing it (a.k.a.—repentance).

Quote #32:

“Did you know that even the word “cleanses” in I John 1:7 is really beautiful?  In the Greek, the tense for the word “cleanse” denotes a present and continuous action, which means that from the moment you receive Christ, the blood of Jesus keeps on cleansing you.  It is as if you are under a waterfall of His forgiveness.  Even when you fail, this waterfall never stops.  It keeps on keeping on, cleansing you from ALL your sins and unrighteousness.”

Chapter 9, pages 108-109

NOTE: Admittedly, I am no expert on Greek—especially Greek verb tenses.  However, I have no problem with the idea of the blood of Jesus providing perpetual cleansing.  I would even tend to agree with Joseph Prince that the cleansing in verse 7 is different from the cleansing in verse 9.  The problem lies in the notion that being perpetually cleansed means perpetually sinning.  I’m not sure “waterfall of perpetual forgiveness” is how I would describe this verse’s meaning either.

The best way I could describe the different types of cleansing here is: one type of cleansing is for falling into sin; the other type of cleansing is for staying free from sin.  Even though I believe through the power of grace I can stop sinning, I still live in a world corrupted through sin—and I need the blood of Jesus to keep me from falling.  I need to keep my mind renewed by the washing of the Word; I need to fellowship with God through prayer; I need to fellowship with people of like-faith; etc. etc.  We are cleansed people who for the time being, live in a very dirty environment that permeates all of the five senses.  We need the blood of Jesus to keep the filth out of our hearts and minds.  This doesn’t make us sinners; it just means we need spiritual maintenance.

Quote #33:

“In I John 2:1, John addressed the believers as ‘My little children’…and went on to say, ‘These things I write to you, so that you may not sin.  And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ.’  Notice that John did not tell the believers, ‘If anyone sins, make sure that he confesses his sins.’  No, his solution for a believer who sins is to point him to the finished work of Jesus.”

NOTE:  This is misleading.  Notice our Advocate is a Person, not an event.  Also note that Jesus did not die on a cross to save us from the act of repentance.

Quote #34:

“Did the cross make a difference or not?  Jesus Christ has already delivered all believers from the covenant of law which condemns.”

Chapter 10, page 117

NOTE: Jesus Christ did not die on the cross to save us from the Old Testament that God Himself authored.

Quote #35:

“For generations, the church has believed that by preaching the Ten Commandments, we will produce holiness.  When we see sin on the increase, we start to preach more of the law.  But the Word of God actually says that “the strength of sin is the law.”  It also says that “sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace”.  So the power for the church to overcome sin is actually found in being under grace and not in reinforcing the law.  Preaching more of the law to counteract sin is like adding wood to the fire!”

Chapter 10, page 121

NOTE: Chapter ten is actually the best chapter so far at describing the differences between “law” and “grace”; however, many of the inferences concerning the law are not accurate.

Sample false inference:   “Since the law of Moses was referred to in II Corinthians 3:7-9 as the ministry of death and condemnation, THEN teaching the law will bring people into bondage, make them sin more, etc.”

A few additional points about the law (see my comments under quote #1 & quote #9):

(1)  While the law of Moses is no longer in force, the laws of the kingdom ARE IN FORCE! In addition, virtually ALL of the moral law of the Old Testament is included in the new covenant (with the exception of keeping the Sabbath which was ceremonial law—but even in the case of the Sabbath, the spiritual and moral principles behind keeping the Sabbath are still passed on in the new covenant).  Actually, in the New Testament we are given 1050 commands for New Testament Christians to obey!  (See Dake study Bible, under heading “New Testament Commands for complete list).  Therefore, it is a misunderstanding of the covenant of grace to believe the teaching of “law” brings bondage and causes us to sin more.

(2)  There is a vast difference between not being “under the law” and being “without the law”.  Being under grace does not mean we are exempt from obeying laws.  It means we are not under penalty of the law because grace enables us to KEEP the law!

It is not presumption to believe we can keep the laws God gave us.  It is presumption to believe God gave us laws we could not fulfill since He gave us His grace to fulfill them!

(3)  Even though the law of Moses is obsolete because a new contract has been written, the law is still used to convert the sinner before grace is extended!

• Consider the words of Jesus to the Pharisees in John 9:39:  “…I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.”  Why did Jesus add that last part about making those who see blind first?—Because if a man will not recognize his own blindness; he cannot be made to see.  The law is that which God uses to kill before new life can come!  (Also see Galatians 2:19)
• Consider I Peter 5:5b:  “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”  So if God Himself REFUSES to give the gospel/good news of grace to everyone; but ONLY gives grace to the humble, what does that mean?  It means that if pride is in your heart, God will not reveal His grace to you until you are made humble first!  What tool then does God use to humble the proud to find grace and repentance?  THE LAW!
• Consider these quotes:
  • “The true function of the law is to accuse and kill; but the function of the gospel is to make alive.”—Martin Luther
  • “Although the law serves as a guide to genuine believers, its primary function is to kill and destroy self-righteousness.  All hope in our good works must be put to death if we are ever to depend on Jesus, who alone can bring life.  The law brings that necessary death.”—Kirk Cameron (even the guy from “Growing Pains” gets this!)  J
  • “The unsaved are in no condition today for the Gospel till the Law be applied to their hearts, for ‘by the Law is the knowledge of sin.’  It is a waste of time to sow seed on ground that has never been ploughed or spaded!  To present the vicarious sacrifice of Christ to those whose dominant passion is to take fill of sin is to give that which is holy to the dogs.”—A.W. Pink
  • “He that sows without a plow will reap without a sickle.  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 Spurgeon
  • “You must preach the Law, for the gospel is a silken thread, and you cannot get it into the hearts of men unless you have made a way for it with a sharp needle; the sharp needle of the Law will pull the silken thread of the gospel after it.”—Robbie Flockhart

(4)  Knowing the law of the Lord (a.k.a. the Bible) helps us grow in our relationship with God and have better discernment for the spiritual battles we face.  As Paul told us in II Timothy 4:3 concerning the last days, “the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine.”  Since one of the greatest tools of Satan in the last days will be deceiving people away from sound doctrine, can we not see the dangers of ignoring HUGE portions of the scripture because they talk about laws?  This is NOT studying to show ourselves approved (II Timothy 2:15)!  Must we continue to insist that people who stick with the scriptures for doctrine are “legalists”?  To quote a frequently used phrase from Pastor Prince, “Come on!”  Can we really better keep the spirit of the law by ignoring the letter altogether?

If David could wax eloquent in the Psalms about loving the law of the Lord, keeping His commandments, meditating on them day and night, etc.  Why can’t we love God’s laws too—ESPECIALLY in the age of grace!

(5)  II Timothy 3:15-17

• The source of equipment for all end-time believers is the entire Bible
• All scripture is given
  • Either the whole Bible is the Word of God, or the whole Bible is wrong!  We cannot pick and choose and say that the writers of certain passages missed God, while the writers of other passages were right on!  That’s arrogance, deception, and frustrates the spirit of Grace!
  • The whole Bible is flawless in context and in perfect harmony, there are no contradictions, only misconceptions; it takes a man who doesn’t know the Holy Spirit to confuse something so simple and so direct!
• By inspiration of God—every book in the Bible was planned and directed of God
• Profitable for doctrine—all Scripture interprets and supports all other scripture; there are no scriptures that are contradictory, only misinterpreted; all scripture forms the basis of our belief system; all scripture may be used to convince men of truth
• Profitable for reproof—all scripture provides evidence of truth
• Profitable for correction—all scripture exposes deception and wickedness, as well as lays out consequences and guides to righteousness
• Profitable for instruction in righteousness—all scripture provides a guide for daily Christian living
• Completion of the man of God—all scripture in proper application brings us to perfection
• Full equipment for every good work—all scripture and its understanding will produce demonstrations of the spirit and of power

Enough said.

Quote #36:

“When dealing with any problem in life, we want to get to its root…The world has found that many sicknesses and diseases are linked to a root called stress…The world has also identified fear as the root cause of stress…The Lord showed me a root that was deeper than stress and fear…The Lord showed me that the deepest root is condemnation.”

Chapter 11, pages 129-131

The Bible teaches that there is an even DEEPER root than that!  For after all, what causes condemnation?  SIN!!!

            To quote something I heard my dad once say, “Condemnation is the ‘stink’ of sin.”

Ignoring the sin-problem to focus on the condemnation-problem is like spraying Febreeze instead of taking out the trash!

I don’t mean to belittle the problem of condemnation; but let’s examine the source of it as well.

Is condemnation a real problem in the church?  You bet it is!  I’ll tell you why in a nutshell:  cheap grace & ineffective altar calls.

Consider this quote taken from a theology textbook I researched at a local university:

“One of the most important changes in Evangelical life in the 20th century has been the consistent loss of the centrality of the experience of repentance.  Perhaps this is a point at which evangelicals have been influenced by the liberal tendency to downplay sinfulness and to emphasize the positive aspects of human ability, but 20th century evangelicals have tended to press unconverted persons to an immediate experience of conversion, in which there is little or no room for the extended period of repentance that characterized earlier evangelicalism.  Some evangelicals, concerned with the contemporary renewal of interest in Christian spirituality, have lamented the loss of the place of repentance in the way of salvation and have worked to restore a balanced understanding of repentance as significant to evangelical life.”

Christian Confessions by Ted Campbell, p. 230

In short, we’ve minimized the importance of repentance in our evangelistic efforts and are reaping the consequences from that negligence.  Our churches are full of people who struggle with condemnation primarily because our churches are full of people who struggle with sin.  Faith without repentance is nothing more than mental ascent—and mental ascent will leave you in a condemned state.

So how does one deal with the problem of condemnation?  It’s found in II Corinthians 7:9-11:

“Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. For you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing.  For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death. For observe this very thing, that you sorrowed in a godly manner: What diligence it produced in you, what clearing of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what vehement desire, what zeal, what vindication! In all things you proved yourselves to be clear in this matter.”

           These verses are powerful!  They tell us two very important things:

(1) Godly sorrow leading to repentance is the antidote to condemnation!

(2) Conversely, rejection of godly sorrow is a major factor in why people lose their passion for God!  Which incidentally, rejection of godly sorrow is also a major factor in why people turn away from sound doctrine and run to “itching ear” preachers!

Quote #37:

“An evil conscience is one that is perpetually conscious of sin and failure, and typically expects punishment.  It is a conscience that is under condemnation.”

Chapter 11, page 132

NOTE:  An evil conscience is one that ceases to work, failing to recognize sin as evil, having been seared!  See the following scriptures that bring clarity to a good conscience versus an evil conscience:

A good conscience:  Acts 24:16; II Corinthians 1:12; Romans 9:1; I Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 13:18; I Peter 3:16

A bad conscience:  I Timothy 1:19; I Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:15

Quote #38:

“ ‘But Pastor Prince, how can I differentiate between the Holy Spirit convicting me of sin and the accuser hurling condemnation at me?’…The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit never convicts you [a believer] of your sins…I challenge you to find a scripture in the Bible that tells you that the Holy Spirit has come to convict you of your sins.  You won’t find any!  The body of Christ is living in defeat because many believers don’t understand that the Holy Spirit is actually in them to convict them of their righteousness in Christ.  Even when you fail…”

Chapter 11, pages 134-135

NOTE:   Numerous scriptures bring clarity to the fact that the Holy Spirit, DOES IN FACT convict us of our sins and this is not the same thing as receiving accusations from the “Accuser of the Brethren.”  Consider the following:

(1)  The simple difference between the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin and the Accuser of the Brethren accusing us of sin is this:  The Holy Spirit is telling the truth and the devil is lying!  When conviction of the Holy Spirit comes, it is for the purpose of being liberated from sin and condemnation through repentance; when the Accuser comes, it is for the purpose of slandering the innocent.  So, simple rule of thumb:  if you have sin in your life, the devil has no need to slander you.  If you don’t, the devil has EVERY reason to slander and accuse you!

(2)  The Holy Spirit CLEARLY convicts us of sin for the following reasons:

• Both the Father (Hebrews 12:5-9) and Jesus (Revelation 3:19) convict us of sin and the Holy Spirit is a witness for both of them (John 15:26).
• The scriptures themselves convict us of sin (Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit teaches us the Word of God (John 14:26).
• Believers are instructed by Jesus to carry out church discipline and a sinning member is “convicted” by two or three witnesses (Matthew 18:15-17).  If it’s appropriate for church people to do these things, then how much MORE appropriate is it when God Himself does it through the Holy Spirit?
• Apostle Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:21), instructed both Timothy (II Timothy 4:2) and Titus (Titus 1:13 & 2:15) to confront, rebuke, correct, and convince rebel church members of sin and false doctrine; therefore, if it is appropriate for conviction of sin to come through man by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then conviction of sin is a work of the Holy Spirit
• The human conscience is where conviction of sin takes place (John 8:9; Romans 2:15; etc.) and the Holy Spirit speaks to man through his conscience (Romans 9:1; I John 2:20); therefore, when man needs to repent, conviction of the Holy Spirit takes place
• The Bible plainly states that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin (John 16:8-11—Please see my notes under the next point for further clarity on these verses)

(3)  It is true—a work of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of our righteousness in Christ; it is not true however, that the Holy Spirit convicts us of how righteous we are WHEN WE SIN!   He may convict us of our PURPOSE for righteousness and our POTENTIAL for righteousness; but He is the Spirit of Truth and will not flatter us into a false sense of righteousness.

Quote #39:

“When He [Jesus] said that the Holy Spirit would come to ‘convict the world of sin’ [John 16:8]because they do not believe in Him, it is clear that He was referring to unbelievers because they are of ‘the world.’  And notice that the Holy Spirit does not convict the world of ‘sins’ (plural).  It is only one ‘sin’ (singular) that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of, and that is the sin of unbelief, the sin of rejecting Jesus and not believing in His finished work…So the Holy Spirit is present to convict unbelievers of that one sin of unbelief…”

Chapter 11, pages 136-137

NOTE:  Let’s look at John 16:8-11:

“And when He [the Holy Spirit] has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:  of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.”

Note the following points:

(1)The “world” does not and CANNOT refer exclusively to unbelievers in this statement and CAN ONLY refer to all men/all mankind for the following reasons:

• Though the term “the world” can be used to refer to the world system characterized in unbelievers (I John 2:15), the term “the world” is used in other scriptures to signify all mankind (see John 3:16).
• “Conviction of sin”, “conviction of righteousness” and “conviction of judgment” are three separate categories of conviction directed at ONE audience:  “the world.”  Why would the Holy Spirit EXCLUSIVELY convict unbelievers of sin, righteousness and judgment—and leave the believers “un-convicted” in these areas?  On the same token, why would the Holy Spirit EXCLUSIVELY convict believers of sin, righteousness and judgment—and leave UNbelievers UNconvicted and UNevangelized.  The only logical and biblically-consistent conclusion is that the world refers to all mankind.
• Both believers and unbelievers experience conviction by the Holy Spirit in all three areas.
• The term “the world” is used to give distinction to the idea that conviction of the Holy Spirit is for ALL men (Gentiles included), and not just an exclusively Jewish audience.

(2)  This verse is not implying the Holy Spirit convicts the world of one sin ONLY—as Pastor Prince puts it, “the sin of rejecting Jesus and not believing in His finished work.”  A believer/unbeliever can experience conviction from ANY and ALL sin—so what does this mean?

The term “sin” is singular because it is ONE category that includes a MILLION-BILLION things!  This verse is not saying the only sin (or the only sin that matters) that the Holy Spirit convicts us of is the sin of not believing in Jesus!  It is saying all sin is ROOTED in unbelief.  The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin “BECAUSE they do not believe in Me”.  In other words, it is not saying the Holy Spirit convicts us of the sin of unbelief and rejecting Jesus (though technically true); it is saying the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin BECAUSE of unbelief and rejecting Jesus!

Quote #40:

“If the Holy Spirit never convicts you the believer of your sins, then what does He convict you of?  Jesus says that the Holy Spirit convicts you “of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more”.  Now who is Jesus talking about here?  Believers or unbelievers?  Clearly, with the use of the second person pronoun “you”, Jesus was referring to believers.  The Holy Spirit was sent to convict believers of righteousness.”

Chapter 11, page 137

NOTE:  Jesus is talking about believers AND unbelievers, as explained in the previous point.  The use of the second person pronoun “you” simply means “you the audience” are included in “the world” to whom the Holy Spirit convicts.

The Holy Spirit convicts both believers and unbelievers alike of sin (wrong-doing based in unbelief) and righteousness (right doing, right living, the vanity of man’s righteousness apart from God, Christ our Righteousness, etc.)  Jesus did not change audiences mid-sentence.

Quote #41:

“Today, there are some believers who believe that the Holy Spirit is in them to convict them not just of their sins, but also of God’s anger and judgment toward them.  This is just not true either…When Jesus said [John 16:11], ‘of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged,’ who was He referring to?  Believers or unbelievers?  The answer is neither.  He was referring to ‘the ruler of this world’, as plainly stated in the verse.”

Chapter 11, page 143

NOTE:  The conviction of judgment is still addressed to “the world” (verse 8), not Satan.  (See notes on Quotes #39-40).  The context of the verse is not “the world is convicted that Satan is judged” either (though that may be part of it).  Again, the verse is saying the Holy Spirit convicts the world of judgment BECAUSE Satan is judged!  In other words, since Satan is judged, we must be convicted of judgment to not share his fate!

Quote #42:

“The accuser is an astute legal prosecutor who will not hesitate to use the Ten Commandments to condemn you.  That’s why the Word of God declares that the Ten Commandments are not just ‘the ministry of death,’ they are also ‘the ministry of condemnation [II Corinthians 3:7, 9]’…That’s why Apostle Paul said that the ‘commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.  For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me[Romans 7:10-11].’  Notice that sin ‘by the commandment’ deceived him and killed him.  What that means is that when Paul came under the old covenant of law, he too came under the ministry of death and condemnation.  The law always ministers condemnation.”

Chapter 12, page 145

NOTE:  With regards to the “accuser” condemning us with the Ten Commandments:

Let’s remember that the very nature of “the Accuser of the Brethren” is as a liar, one who slanders the innocent, not rightly condemns the guilty…and yes, Satan is an expert at twisting the Word of God into a weapon of deception (see Garden of Eden & Jesus in the Wilderness).

With regards to the Ten Commandments as a “ministry of death and condemnation”:

Let’s look at II Corinthians 3:7-9 for context:

“But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?  For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.”

Notice these verses are contrasting covenants in the Old and New Testaments.  This is not a text that is critiquing the law as a tool of Satan for making us feel bad for sin.  In fact, BOTH covenants are referred to as “glorious”, and when the old covenant is referred to as “the ministry of death” and “the ministry of condemnation”, it is comparatively speaking.

However, the law certainly IS a ministry of death and condemnation to those who rebel against God (see Hebrews 3:7-19)—and this is JUST and RIGHT!  For if man will not receive the Word of God by faith and trust in Him, he will be condemned by the lawregardless of which covenant you live under!

Notice the characteristics of those who received the law as a ministry of death and condemnation as they are described a few verses later in II Corinthians 3:14-16 from the Amplified version:

“In fact, their minds were grown hard and calloused [they had become dull and lost the power of understanding]; for until this present day, when the Old Testament (the old covenant) is being read, that same veil still lies [on their hearts], not being lifted [to reveal] that in Christ it is made void and done away.  Yes, down to this [very] day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their minds and hearts.  But whenever a person turns [in repentance] to the Lord, the veil is stripped off and taken away.”

So here we have an illustration that in both covenants, new and old, the law is a ministry of death and condemnation to those who stay in unbelief and refuse repentance.

With regards to sin deceiving Paul by the law:

Let’s look at Romans 7:10-11 for context:

“And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death.  For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.”

These verses are part of Paul sharing his testimony of his slavery to sin through the law PRIOR to being converted.  Notice the source of Paul’s deception and death:  it was NOT the law—it was SIN!  Because Paul was an unconverted sinner, all his attempts to be a good law-abiding Pharisee apart from Christ caused him to be deceived and condemned.

In fact, Paul makes sure to emphasize that he had a “law-problem” BECAUSE he had a “SIN-problem”!  (See Romans 7:13).

With regards to the law ALWAYS ministering death and condemnation:

(1)  Read Psalm One:  meditating in the law of the Lord leads to prosperity, health, vitality, blessings and fruitfulness.  None of those things sound like death or condemnation.

(2)  Read Psalm 119.  The law ministers a lot of things here.

(3)  Perhaps it is ONLY the law of Moses that is referred to as ALWAYS ministering death and condemnation?  It didn’t minister death and condemnation to Joshua and Caleb!  In fact, look at Joshua 1:7-8:

“[God speaking]Only be strong and very courageous, that you may observe to do according to all the law which my servant Moses commanded you; do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may prosper wherever you go.  ‘This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate in it day and night, that you may observe to do according to all that is written in it.  For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.”

Quote #43:

“The law stirs up sinful desires in man’s flesh.  Let me tell you that as long as you are in your current body, you will have the propensity to sin.  I did not come up with this.  It was Paul who said, ‘For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.’[Romans 7:15]”

Chapter 12, pages 147-148

NOTE:  Paul was illustrating the depth of his slavery to sin BEFORE CHRIST (Read the opening chapter of “Misunderstood Texts of Scripture” by Asa Mahan and see his exposition of Romans chapter seven).  The more Paul studied the law and tried to keep it apart from salvation through Christ, the more in bondage to sin he became.  He was not setting a template for typical Christian living!  He was describing the self-righteous man that he was, attempting to keep the laws of God without conversion to Christ!

            Let me tell you—NO!  As long as you are in your body, you do NOT have to keep your propensity to sin!  THIS IS NOT THE TESTIMONY OF A REGENERATED MAN!!!

Quote #44:

“Paul was faced with the same struggles that you and I are faced with today.  His lament is recorded in Romans 7…But Paul does not stop there.  He goes on to show us in the first verse of Romans 8 how we can counter the accuser’s attacks…There is NOW NO CONDEMNATION to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS!…That is it, my friend—no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, period.  There are no conditions and no prerequisites…So the good news that he [Paul] was declaring is that even when there is sin, there is NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Chapter 12 pages 148-150

NOTE:  The reason there is NOW no condemnation in Christ Jesus, is because Paul is NOW talking about who he is in the present tense—a new creation through Christ Jesus—no longer a slave to sin!  In case there’s any confusion, Paul gives a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT testimony in Romans 8 than he just gave in Romans 7!

• In Romans 7 he was under condemnation; in Romans 8 he has no condemnation
• In Romans 7 he was captive to the law of sin; in Romans 8 he is free from the law of sin
• In Romans 7 he faced  eternal death; in Romans 8 he was free from eternal death
• In Romans 7 sin ruled in Paul’s flesh; in Romans 8 sin was condemned in Paul’s flesh through Christ Jesus
• In Romans 7 Paul’s righteousness was unfulfilled; in Romans 8, Paul’s righteousness is fulfilled through Christ Jesus
• In Romans 7 Paul was carnally minded; in Romans 8, Paul was spiritually minded with life and peace
• In Romans 7 Paul is not spirit-filled; in Romans 8, Paul is filled with the same Spirit that rose Christ from the dead
• In Romans 7 Paul was a sinner; in Romans 8 Paul’s body is dead to sin
• In Romans 7 Paul is deceived and killed by sin in his flesh; in Romans 8 Paul has crucified his flesh
• In Romans 7 Paul was walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit; in Romans 8 Paul is walking after the spirit and not after the flesh!

P.S.—Being IN Christ Jesus implies that you are not IN sin!

Quote #45:

“Let me give you a practical tip on how you can grow in this revelation of ‘no condemnation’:  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.’”

Chapter 12, page 151

NOTE:  You can’t make this stuff up folks.  Oh wait, someone just did.

Quote #46:

“‘But Pastor Prince, what happens when I sin?’  Well, does ‘NOW’ cover the moment when you sin?  Of course it does.  ‘There is therefore now no condemnation…’ is a ‘now’ verse.  The declaration is true every moment, every day.  It is true in the morning.  It is true in the night.  And when tomorrow comes, it is still true.  There is presently, continuously, no condemnation for you because you are in Christ!”

NOTE:  Wrong answer.  You are in Christ Jesus?  NOW you have no condemnation.  You just sinned?  NOW you are in sin.  Repent and get back in Christ Jesus!

Quote #47:

“Look at the parable of the prodigal son which Jesus shared…We see a father who runs toward his prodigal son to embrace him the moment he sees him from a distance.  Do you know that the father’s behavior is actually contrary to the law of Moses?…according to the law, if a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who refuses to heed his parents, that man is supposed to bring his son to the elders of the city, and all the men of his city are to stone his son to death, so that they can put away the evil from among them, and all Israel shall hear and fear [Deuteronomy 21:18-21].  That’s the law of Moses.”

Chapter 12, page 154

NOTE:  One major difference between Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and the story of the prodigal son:  the prodigal son repented/the stubborn, rebellious son who got stoned refused repentance even after chastening from both parents. While it may be true, the prodigal son may have DESERVED stoning, the repentance is key.  Even in the old covenant, God was merciful and gracious to the penitent who humbled themselves before God, turned from sin and cried out to Him.

Quote #48:

“We all know that the son was not returning to the father’s house because he had realized his mistake.  He was returning because he was hungry!”

Chapter 12, page 155

NOTE:  His hunger became a catalyst for him to realize the goodness of his father, come to his senses, resolve to repent, humble himself taking on the form of a servant, confess his sin, and return to the father.

This is an extremely presumptuous interpretation of scripture to overlook ALL that and INFER the prodigal was NOT repenting, but was in actuality, scheming for food.  There is no evidence whatsoever to accept this spurious and ridiculous interpretation.  If the prodigal was not truly repentant but just a hungry schemer, why did he plan such a far journey home and such an elaborate hoax when he could have just stolen some food from a neighbor?  Was his father the only means to obtain food?

Quote #49:

“Do you remember what He [Jesus] said to the woman who was caught in adultery?…’Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’  Now, pay close attention to this:  Jesus gave her the gift of ‘no condemnation’ before He told her to go and sin no more…the reason people are shying away from churches…is not because they are rebelling against Jesus.  It is because they have not been introduced to the Jesus who gives the guilty sinner the gift of no condemnation.”

Chapter 13, page 164

NOTE:  What we see in this account of the woman caught in adultery is God’s principle of “God resisting the proud and giving grace to the humble” (I Peter 5:5; James 4:6) at work.  The adulterous woman, clearly already humbled by her sin did not require the law to do its work to convict her of her crime.  She knew she was guilty in need of forgiveness.  This is the same reason Jesus was able to dispense MORE grace to “publicans and sinners” than to the Pharisees (see Matthew 9:10-13).

Once a person’s heart is humbled to repentance, there is no further need for the law to heap condemnation upon them, there is only need for grace because the heart is prepared to receive.  That being said, this is not a proof text that Jesus indiscriminately preaches a universal “no condemnation” message to guilty sinners everywhere and therefore, in our evangelistic efforts we must exclusively say things that make people feel good about themselves.  That is rubbish!

Look again at the FULL account given in John 8:3-11:

“Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery.  And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.  Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.  But what do You say?’  This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.  But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.  So when they continued asking Him, He rasied Himself up and said to them, ‘He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.’  And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.  Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last.  And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.  When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, ‘Woman, where are those accusers of yours?  Has no one condemned you?  She said, ‘No one, Lord.’  And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’”

Notice that Jesus was surrounded by guilty sinners, but only liberated ONE from condemnation!  His message of “no condemnation” was not universal to His audience.  His message of “no condemnation” was one He gave to the humble who could receive it.  The MAJORITY, Jesus let walk away convicted of sin in their own consciences and He left them in their condemned state!  Why?  God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

The woman Jesus did not condemn, was liberated from condemnation but commanded to change course with her life (a.k.a.—repent/be converted) in the words—“go and sin no more.”  In the same scenario, a multitude of religious hypocrites were left in condemnation by the law!

What an excellent illustration of law and grace used by the Master in the same account!  This is TRUE evangelism.  If it seems hard, it could be that we have a false notion about evangelism that it is “salesmanship.”  It is not.  We are called to be WITNESSES for Christ:  making converts and disciples; not USED CAR SALESMEN for Christ: making temporary customers with marketing ploys and cheap grace gimmicks.

Quote #50:

“Now, let’s come back to the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Let me ask you a question:  Was the woman guilty?  Yes, she was, absolutely.  There is no doubt about that.  The Bible states that she was ‘caught in adultery, in the very act.’  But instead of condemning her according to the law of Moses, which required her to be stoned to death (the law of Moses always ministers condemnation and death, it cannot save the guilty sinner), Jesus showed her grace and gave her the gift of no condemnation.”

Chapter 13, page 165

NOTE:  Once again, Pastor Prince is attempting to put the Law of Moses at odds with Christ Himself.  (It is not necessary to portray Christ as an enemy of the law of Moses in order to illustrate we have a better covenant through grace).  Ironically, this is EXACTLY what the scribes and Pharisees were trying to do:   portray the words/doctrine of Christ as an enemy to the law of Moses (or portray Christ as a usurper of Roman authority, depending on how He answered).

It is true that a woman caught in adultery qualified for stoning; however, Jesus responded to their accusations referring to another law of Moses (see Deuteronomy 19:15-21), which required that in matters of criminal cases, two or three witnesses were required to establish a verdict.  In addition, the witnesses themselves were subject to inquisition based on the charge that they presented concerning someone else.  If they were found to be illegitimate, they could be subjected to the same penalty they were seeking for those they accused.

In Jesus’ act of compassion towards the adulteress, He violated no laws of jurisprudence.  Her accusers withdrew to save their own skin and the case was dropped!

Quote #51:

“Anyone who is living in sin is not under grace and has not experienced the gift of no condemnation.  Grace always results in victory over sin!”

Chapter 13, page 167

NOTE:  This is TRUE actually!  It doesn’t negate the first 50 quotes of error bordering on heresy given in the first half of the book that suggest the opposite, but it’s something!

Quote #52:

“Let’s continue with what happened after the children of Israel murmured and complained.  In your Bible, it says that ‘the Lord sent fiery serpents [Numbers 21:6], and they bit the people and many of the Israelites died…All God did was that He lifted His protection when they murmured against Moses.  Remember this happened under the old covenant of law!  Praise the Lord that in the new covenant of grace that you and I are under, God WILL NEVER lift His protection over us.”

Chapter 15, page 200

NOTE:  Look at the admonition we get from Paul concerning what happened to those in the wilderness that were bitten by serpents:

“nor let US tempt CHRIST, as some of them [my emphasis added] also tempted, and were destroyed by serpents; nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer.  Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for OUR admonition [my emphasis added], upon whom the ends of the ages have come.  Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.”–I Corinthians 10:9-12

What about the “new covenant of grace”?  Consider Hebrews 10:28-29:

“Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?”

There are tremendous blessings and benefits to the new covenant of grace, such as prosperity, healing, righteousness, peace, supernatural endowments, etc.  These are all part of the package.  In fact, grace enables us to do the works of Christ and live as Christ demonstrated for us to live.  That being said, whether we are talking about someone who lived under the old covenant or someone living today, the principle has not changed:  DON’T TEMPT GOD!

Quote #53:

“Three items were kept in the ark of the covenant.  The first was the stone tablets on which God wrote the Ten Commandments…So the ark of the covenant is a shadow of our Lord Jesus Christ, His person and His work.  Because of His blood, all our sins have been cleansed.  That is why it was dangerous for anyone back in those days to lift the mercy seat to uncover the sins and rebellion that God had covered.  The mercy seat was not to be lifted at any time and the consequences for doing so were severe…Nobody was supposed to even take a peak at the Ten Commandments.  God doesn’t want the law to be exposed because it represents our rebellion, and it will only minister death and condemnation.  The peculiar thing is that people have made the Ten Commandments into posters that are hung in homes today, when even in the Old Testament, God kept the law hidden under the mercy seat!”

Chapter 16, pages 208-211

NOTE:  There is no question that typology is throughout the Old Testament; however, building doctrine on typologies is the least reliable method of Bible interpretation.  While some of the typologies cited above may contain elements of truth, the doctrinal inferences concerning God hiding the Ten Commandments because they represent “rebellion” is a theological foundation built of balsa wood!  It’s weak!

The above quote is an excellent example of the allegorical method of Bible interpretation.  Finis Dake had the following comments concerning interpreting scripture through the allegorical method:

“We should reject and utterly avoid all such foolishness.  The habit of these men [those who interpret the scripture allegorically as the primary method] is to disregard the common significance of words, the grammatical construction, and the literal intention of God in Scripture.  They force into Scripture any meaning their fancy chooses, and they make the interpreter equal to God and his interpretations even better than the plain Word of God.”

The Bible is full of allegory, typology and symbolism.  That being said, if you can’t find right doctrine given literally in plain scripture, the probability of you finding right doctrine by assigning mystical meanings to Old Testament passages is slim to none!

(See “God’s Plan for Man” by Finis Dake, chapter three on “How to Interpret the Bible” or enroll in “Peacemakers School of Theology” at www.peacemakersinstitute.com.)

Quote #54:

“The Lord showed me something a number of years ago…He spoke to me and said, ‘Son, study the journey from Egypt to Mount Sinai for this is a picture of pure grace.  Not a single Israelite died during this period although they murmured and complained’…Study the Bible yourself.  You’ll find that every time the children of Israel murmured and complained, it only brought forth fresh demonstrations of God’s favor…Because during that period, the blessings and provisions they received were not dependent on their obedience or goodness.  They were dependent on God’s goodness and faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant, which was a covenant of grace.”

Chapter 17, page 221-222

NOTE:  The “period” of grace referred to where no one died prior to Sinai where the giving of the law led to mass genocide (I’m being facetious), was a period of  only 50 days according to the departure date from Egypt (Numbers 33:3) until the arrival date at Sinai (Exodus 19:1).  So we may see without question, that God graciously refrained from killing anyone for the first 50 days, a period of time that was actually SHORTERthan the period of time between the arrival at Sinai, the construction of the calf, Moses’ intercession for the people and the actual execution of judgment upon the idolaters who continued rebellion and REFUSED to be counted “on the Lord’s side” (Exodus 32:26).

Quote #55:

“…Something tragic happened right at the foot of Mount Sinai.  In Exodus 19:8, your English Bible says that the people cried out to Moses, saying, ‘All that the Lord has spoken we will do.’  In the original Hebrew text, this is actually a statement of pride.  They were saying, ‘All that God requires and demands of us, we are well able to perform’…So they effectively exchanged covenants, from the Abrahamic covenant which is based on grace, to the Sinaitic covenant which is based on the law.”

Chapter 17, pages 222-223

NOTE:  The giving of the law at Sinai was not the chastening of God for Israel’s presumption of obedience.  If the Israelites were truly walking in the grace of God, they WERE WELL ABLE to obey the commands of God!

Why would a just Lord deliberately give commands to His servants they could not fulfill, and then ADDITIONALLY PUNISH them for their predetermined and unavoidable failure?

Keep in mind that it was under the Abrahamic covenant (“which is based on grace”) that Israel backslid and went into captivity in Egypt for 430 years prior to the 50 day “period of pure grace” leading to Sinai.

If the Abrahamic covenant is based on grace and characterized by the unconditional favor of God, why are ONLY the last 50 days referred to as an example of this, and the 430 years prior completely ignored???

Quote #56:

“From that point onwards, every time the children of Israel murmured and complained, many of them would die.  Observe this:  Before Sinai, none died.  After Sinai, the moment they murmured, they died.”

Chapter 17, page 224

NOTE:  This is a legitimate point.  The law NECESSITATED a total consecration to God (as was required in every covenant).  But its greatest liability was it robbed man of his excuses.  Sin no longer had a place to hide.  Therefore, death was the result for those who remained in self-righteousness and were unfaithful to the God whose grace they so desperately needed.  (Yes, grace was available in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament—which is why not everyone in the Old Testament is in hell today.  See my book, “Grace Empowerment” in chapter two called “Old Testament Grace Economics” for more details).

It’s not that God did not previously expect anything from anyone before the law came, or even that He no longer expects things of us today! It’s that up to this point, man had never so clearly known what God expected of him.  Therefore, man’s true nature was revealed.

Revelation brought responsibility.  This is not Old Testament.  This is an eternal principle.  Consider the moral of Jesus’ parable of the unfaithful servant (Luke 12:42-48):  “To whom much is given, much is required.”

This does not mean the key to walking in grace is deliberate ignorance of the law!  For people die for the very opposite as well.  In Hosea 4:6 God says clearly, “My people are destroyed for LACK of knowledge” and goes on to say God’s people are also rejected for REJECTING knowledge!

Please understand:  knowledge of the law is not a hindrance to grace—it only leads to death when we ignore it, refuse it, deny it, or shun God Himself because we don’t want to abide by it!

Quote #57:

“‘But Pastor Prince, we have to preach God’s law and His judgment, or there will be no repentance from the people.’  My friend, God’s heart is never to condemn.  We want judgment, but God wants mercy.  The Bible says that ‘the goodness of God leads you to repentance.’…Nevertheless, there are still people who insist that we have to preach on repentance.  Well, I disagree!  I think that we should do it God’s way—preach the goodness of God to lead people to repentance.”

Chapter 18, pages 231-232

NOTE:  Herein lies one of the deadliest false teachings of modern times:  “we shouldn’t talk about repentance!”  Let’s break this apart to get absolute clarity on this issue:

    (1)  Concerning God’s heart to have mercy and not “condemn”:

Consider the verse from Hosea 6:6 that Jesus quoted on at least two different instances:  “For I desire mercy and not sacrifice…”  Now consider this:  Hosea 6:6 was written as a lament of God that though He desired to give mercy, He could not because extending judgment had become necessary due to the hardness of hearts in Israel.  Why was judgment necessary?  They refused repentance.

Extending mercy is always PREFERABLE to God; nevertheless, we can find countless examples of God extending judgment.  We must conclude then, that though extending judgment is not PREFERABLE, it is not evil in and of itself—since God extends judgment so often.

We must also conclude since God is merciful of heart, that when His judgment is extended, it is not cruel; but in fact, completely appropriate and actually carried out by the Author of mercy itself.  If then, it is appropriate for God to judge, then it is appropriate that we as WITNESSES for God not try to “market His ‘better’ qualities” but present God for who He is.

{I know that goes against popular thought on modern (failed, failing and perpetually failing) evangelism techniques, but Acts 1:8 says God gave us power to be WITNESSES for Him NOT power to be “used car salesmen.”}

Likewise, just as a merciful God extends judgment, merciful Christians teach repentance so sinners CAN AVOID IT!

(2)  Concerning the goodness of God leading men to repentance:

The preaching of judgment and repentance is not contrary to the goodness of God that leads men to repentance.

Look at Romans 2:4:

“Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?”

This verse is not a proof text for ONLY talking about the goodness of God to lead men to repentance.  In fact, it is quite the opposite; because Paul (the apostle of grace as he’s sometimes called) is not PREACHING in these verses about the goodness of God—he is actually preaching on judgment and sin!!!  Here’s a sample of his sermon:

“who, knowing the righteous judgment of God that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.  Therefore you are inexcusable, O man…But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.  And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?  Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?  But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who ‘will render to each one according to his deeds’:  eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil…”

–Romans 1:32-2:9

(3)  Concerning the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY OF PREACHING REPENTANCE!!!:

• The preaching of John the Baptist concerning the kingdom:
  • “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand… ‘Brood of vipers!  Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?  Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance…And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees.  Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire…His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire…”      (Matthew 3:2-12)
  • “John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.  Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.”  (Mark 1:4-5)
• The preaching of Jesus on repentance:
  • “From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  (Matthew 3:17)
  • “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish”  (Luke 13:3 and repeated again for emphasis two verses later in Luke 13:5)
  • “…Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins shoud be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.  And you are witnesses of these things.”  (Luke 24:46-48)
  • Also see Matthew 11:20-21; 12:41; 21:28-32 Revelation 2:5, 16, 21-22; 3:3, 19
• The preaching of Jesus’ disciples on repentance during Jesus’ ministry:
  • “So they went out and preached that people should repent.”  (Mark 6:12)
• The preaching of Peter on repentance on the Day of Pentecost that led to great revival and mass salvation:
  • “‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.’  Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’  Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”  (Acts 2:36-38)
• The preaching of Peter AFTER Pentecost:
  • “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord”  (Acts 3:19)
  • “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.  For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity.”  (Acts 8:22-23)
• The preaching of repentance by Paul in Book of Acts:
  • “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”  (Acts 17:30-31)
  • See also Acts 20:21 & Acts 26:20
• Paul taught godly sorrow as necessary to repentance and repentance as necessary to salvation in II Corinthians 7:9-11
• Paul listed repentance FIRST as one of six foundational doctrines of Christ (judgment  is also listed) that is necessary “milk” for Christians before they can mature as doers of the word (Hebrews 5:11-6:1)

(4)  Concerning the omission of preaching of repentance by false pastors, false prophets and false teachers:

Consider the “prophet wars” of the Old Testament.  Probably the two main themes of the TRUE prophets of the Old Testament (who wrote many of the books of the Bible) were “repentance” and “judgment.”  (Read their stories.  Find out what they had to say.  Don’t succumb to ignorance of the Old Testament because of cheap grace teachers who ignore it as irrelevant.)

What was the main theme of the false shepherds, the wicked priests and the false prophets?  We are fine as we are.  God is on our side.  We don’t need to fear God’s judgment.  Ignore the real prophets.

Now let’s take it into the New Testament to find out what God tells us preachers (through Paul) what we are supposed to preach:

“I charge [you] in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, Who is to judge the living and the dead, and by (in the light of) His coming and His kingdom:  Herald and preach the Word!  Keep your sense of urgency [stand by, be at hand and ready], whether the opportunity seems to be favorable or unfavorable.  [Whether it is convenient or inconvenient, whether it is welcome or unwelcome, you as preacher of the Word are to show people in what ways their lives are wrong.]  And convince them, rebuking and correcting, warning and urging and encouraging them, being unflagging and inexhaustible in patience and teaching.  For the time will come when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold, and will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions.”—II Timothy 4:1-4 [Amplified]

In summary of this point:  PREACHERS WHO REFUSE TO INSTRUCT PEOPLE CONCERNING REPENTANCE AND JUDGMENT ARE IN DISOBEDIENCE TO GOD AND ARE HARMING THE CHURCH INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM!

Quote #58:

“…many of us have the impression that repentance is something that involves mourning and sorrow.  However, that is not what the Word of God says.  Repentance just means changing your mind.”

Chapter 18, page 233

NOTE:  There is nothing wrong with defining “repentance” in simple terms; however, this is just SIMPLISTIC and a very poor characterization meant to belittle one of the most foundational Christian doctrines.  Repentance is an inward conversion that produces an outward change.  Speaking in terms of its application to the believer, it is inseparably linked to conversion.  It consists of four parts displayed over and over again in scripture:  humility, genuine sorrow, confession of sin, and turning from sin.  It means a reversal:  a total change in direction inwardly (different attitude, feelings, & way of thinking, a new heart condition and a change of will) with outward “fruits of repentance” (speaking and acting differently).

Perhaps one could refer to repentance as “a change of mind”; but that is really an inadequate definition considering how loosely we use that terminology today!  When I think of “a change of mind” I think of my wife picking out clothes.  That does nothing to help me understand repentance!

When the Old Testament prophets, or Jesus, or Paul, or the apostles, etc. were preaching “repentance”—they weren’t saying, “Hey!  God wants you to change your mind about stuff!”  NO!  They were saying, “HEY!  God wants you to CHANGE EVERYTHING by being joined to Him in total consecration!

Consider the following scriptural examples of repentance:

• In connection to sorrow and mourning:  Isaiah 22:12; Ezekiel 18:31; Joel 2:12; Jeremiah 31:9; Matthew 5:4; Psalm 34:18; Joel 2:13; Luke 6:21;  II Kings 22:19; Ezra 10:1; Job 42:6; Jonah 3:6-8; Mark 14:72; II Corinthians 7:10; James 4:8-10
• In connection with humility:  II Chronicles 7:14; I Samuel 7:3; Luke 15:18; I Kings 8:46-50; Psalm 34:18; I Kings 21:27; II Kings 22:19; Ezra 10:1; Job 42:6; Luke 15:21; Luke 18:13; Isaiah 66:2
• In connection with confession of sin:  Hosea 14:12; Acts 8:22; Ezra 10:11; Proverbs 28:13; Jeremiah 3:13; I John 1:9; Leviticus 26:40; Numbers 5:7; Mark 1:15; Luke 5:8; Luke 15:18; I Kings 8:33-35; Ezra 10:1; Job 42:1, 6; Luke 15:21
• In connection to both an inward and outward turn: Ezekiel 14:6; 33:11; Acts 3:19; Acts 26:20; James 4:8; II Chronicles 30:9; Nehemiah 1:9; Isaiah 55:7; Ezekiel 18:21; Zechariah 1:3

Quote #59:

“Believers are often exhorted to repent from sin.  However in the New Testament, we are actually exhorted to repent from dead works…It says in the book of Hebrews [Hebrews 6:1]that the first foundation stone of our faith is ‘repentance from dead works and of faith toward God’.  Now, ‘dead works’ are not sins.  They are the religious things that people do, thinking that by doing these things, they are gaining righteousness with God.”

Chapter 18, page 234

NOTE:  This is fascinating to me on two fronts:

Front one:  Hebrews 5:11-6:2 is a fascinating topical study because within these verses are the core doctrines of both the Old and the New Testaments and the core problem of “dullness of hearing” regarding these subjects.

Front two:  The doctrine of repentance is listed of primary importance to conversion and its theme is echoed in hundreds of scriptures in both the old and new testaments.  In the hundreds of scriptures both old and new testament that this theme is echoed, it is dealing directly with the subject of sin. Yet Pastor Prince makes a fascinating and erroneous claim that dismisses the relevancy of repentance from sin as connected to this topic WHATSOEVER!

Herein lies the major question:  Is Pastor Prince’s interpretation of the doctrine of repentance from dead works having no correlation with repentance from sin correct?

I believe Pastor Prince’s interpretation to be spurious, reckless, misleading and completely FALSE based on the following points:

(1) The broader context

The book of Hebrews was written specifically to instruct Jewish Christians concerning the conversion of covenants from Old Testament Judaism to New Testament Christianity, so even though the verses may be clearly understood by Gentiles without doctrinal contradiction, many of the references carry extra significance to Jewish people.  Understanding this paradigm will aide in rightly interpreting Hebrews 6:1, as I will now illustrate:

Look at Hebrews 6:1-2 for the full list of what is referred to as “the elementary principles of Christ”:

“Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrines of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection from the dead, and of eternal judgment.”

These six items (repentance from dead works, faith towards God, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection from the dead and eternal judgment) are all referred to as “elementary principles of Christ.”  Why is this significant?  Because these SAME six items were ALSO considered elementary principles for making proselytes of Judaism in the Old Covenant!

For example:  “baptisms” (though it may have different connotations for us as Christians), was foreshadowed in Jewish practices—such as a one-time cleansing for Jewish proselytes converting to Judaism) and Old Testament teachings (Levitical washings, ceremonial cleansings, etc).

Consider this quote taken from the Bible Background Commentary:

“The writer [Paul] probably chooses these items as the ‘basics’ because they were the basic sort of instructions about Jewish belief given to converts to Judaism, which all the author’s readers would have understood before becoming followers of Jesus.  These items represented Jewish teachings still useful for followers of Christ [my emphasis added].  Judaism stressed repentance as a regular antidote for sin, and a once-for-all kind of repentance for the turning of pagans to Judaism.”

So, what was once considered “the basics” for converting pagans to Judaism, Paul is writing to tell us that these same subjects are still necessary for Christians and are now referred to as elementary principles of CHRIST!  Thus, what was elementary in the Old Testament remains elementary in the New Testament—repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment!

In fact, look at the Greek word used in Hebrews 6:1 translated “laying again.”  It is the Greek word “katabollo”, and it means “casting down or overthrow.”

Let’s look again at Hebrews 6:1 with this new understanding of “laying again”:

“Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again [casting down or overthrowing] the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God”

What is Paul stressing here?  Don’t cast down or overthrow the foundational doctrines of verses 1-2!  They were foundational in the Old Testament but they are STILL foundational in the NEW Testament!

So, in the Old Testament, would the expression “repentance from dead works” include the idea of repentance from sin?  YES!!!  This hasn’t changed as foundational doctrine!

The broader context of this passage illustrates the error of dismissing sin as included in the subject of repentance from dead works.

(2)  The term “repentance” itself

Since repentance deals with the conversion of the inward man and is a foundational doctrine dealing with sin in both Testaments, it is fair to say sin would be implied already.  Repentance of dead works would still include “sin” even if not expressly stated.

(3) The usage of the term “dead works”

This term is only used here and again in Hebrews 9:14.  It is true, the term has a special connection to religious formalism done apart from God as Pastor Prince suggests; however, these are works committed in self-righteousness and are therefore sin!

In fact, look at Hebrews 9:14:

“How much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your conscience…from dead works to serve the living God?”

If dead works do not infer sin, why do we need the blood of Christ to cleanse our conscience of them?

(4) The term “dead works” itself

The term “dead works” is understood as works/actions resulting in/deserving of DEATH!  Is sin a work/action resulting in/deserving of death?  Of course!  Therefore the idea of sin is echoed in the usage of both phrases:  “repentance” AND “dead works”.

(5) Hebrews 6:1 as it is translated in the Amplified Bible

“Let us not again be laying the foundation of repentance AND [my emphasis added] abandonment of dead works (dead formalism) and of the faith [by which you turned] to God”

Notice this translation gives special distinction to the doctrine of repentance itself and lists “abandonment of dead works” as complementary to the first, then reiterates again a third time the act of repentance implied in faith itself!

(6) The combined terms “repentance of dead works” are used together

Rather than the added phrase “from dead works” undermining the doctrine of repentance as it relates to sin, it only gives heightened understanding to the ongoing theme concerning repentance as it is used hundreds of times elsewhere: repentance is a change that is both inward and outward.

Quote #60:

“When the rich young ruler came boasting in his law-keeping, Jesus answered with the law. And the young man could hardly give a dollar to Jesus and walked away sorrowful.  But in the very next chapter, when Jesus gave no law but showed His grace, it not only opened Zacchaeus’ heart, it also opened up his wallet!”

Chapter 18, page 238

NOTE:  This is actually an excellent contrast between the law and grace.  However, rather than legitimizing abstinence from use of the law in evangelistic efforts—it actually shows that it is appropriate to use the law!

Why did Jesus use the law (not grace) when evangelizing the rich, young ruler?

“Law to the proud, grace to the humble” as previously illustrated.  It is not that Jesus’ efforts at evangelizing the rich young ruler were unsuccessful—Jesus exposed his guilt with the same law he claimed to uphold!  This man was now closer to salvation than He had been previously, (before Jesus used the law to expose his guilt).  The man came as far as Jesus could take him, but would not humble himself in repentance to receive grace.

So why did Jesus NOT use the law when converting Zacchaeus?

Does this mean the only effective method of evangelism is through grace?  No!  It means the law had already done its work in Zacchaeus heart—he was now ready to receive grace for salvation!

ANY evangelist would ALWAYS prefer giving grace in evangelistic efforts!  That’s the EASY part!  Unfortunately, the LAW is the hard part that MUST come first—extending grace  to the unrepentant is casting pearls before swine.

Quote #61:

“You don’t have to worry about how your behavior will be governed without a consciousness of the law.  The Word of God says that grace will teach you—‘For the grace of God…has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts…’ [Titus 2:11-12]. Grace is a teacher…”

Chapter 18, page 239

NOTE:  If you have no consciousness of the law and are worried about what will govern your behavior—it is because your own conscience is telling you, “Hey you!  You need to know the law to rightly govern your behavior!”  If you REALLY want to test out this theory of grace teaching you without knowledge of the law, just put down your Bible (ignoring II Timothy 2:15), never read it again, never obey your conscience and ONLY listen to Stuart Smalley from Saturday Night Live:  “You are good enough; you are smart enough, and DOG-GONE it, PEOPLE LIKE YOU!”   Then send a testimony to Pastor Prince to tell him how things turned out for you!

You know how to RIGHTLY interpret Titus 2:11-12?  The grace of God appearing to all men (in the person of Jesus) CONFIRMS WHAT THE LAW ALREADY TEACHES!

Quote #62:

“In saying that ‘where sin abounded, grace abounded much more’, I am preaching the same message that Paul…preached.  What Paul meant…is this: Sin does not stop God’s grace from flowing, but God’s grace will stop sin…So where there is sin, God’s grace is in superabundance!”

Chapter 19, page 249

NOTE:  What Paul is teaching is NOT:  sin and grace share the same space and no matter how much I sin grace has got me covered!  He is saying that there is MORE THAN ENOUGH GRACE AVAILABLE to completely COME OUT of the dominion of sin in your life and NOT CONTINUE IN SIN!

Quote #63:

“When it came to wrong behavior in Corinth, Paul was cool and collected toward the believers.  He was able to handle their wrong behavior because he knew that the grace of God was able to take care of their spree of wrong behavior.  That is why he was able to speak positively to them…But when it came to wrong doctrine in Galatia, he rebuked the believers there because they nullified God’s grace by mixing it with the law.”

Chapter 20, page 258-259

NOTE:  First of all, the letter to the Corinthians was not exactly all “happy-happy” since it was primarily a book of correction; however, I would agree there IS in fact a greater degree of agitation in Paul’s letter to the church at Galatia because they had become backslidden heretics.

Secondly, what KIND of law were the people in Galatia practicing?

These people were not backslidden because they were preaching Christ and the Ten Commandments from the same pulpit; they were backslidden PRIMARILY because they substituted the ceremonial aspects of the law (man-made traditions, rituals, ceremony & pomp) for faith in God.

            Examples:

(1)  They had rejected the truth, turned from faith, and started justifying themselves by works (Galatians 3:1-5).

{This in itself is no more an indictment against the law than it was when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees.  This was an indictment against those who attempt to practice the law apart from faith in God (Christ).}

           (2)  They had begun to reinforce the ceremonial law (Galatians 4:9-10; 5:1-2)

The ceremonial law was completely done away with through Christ because it was a type and shadow of everything that Christ already fulfilled.  The laws of Moses are not applicable to us because we have a new contract through Christ.  Nevertheless, God’s divine laws are eternal and immutable.  There is no part of the new covenant that implies we are exempt from keeping God’s eternal laws of morality and faith.

(3)  They were imposing the circumcision to avoid persecution for Christ (Galatians 6:12-15).

Galatians 6:15-16 effectively sums up the gospel of grace:

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them…”

Are you or aren’t you a new creation?

This is true grace.  It does not mix with superficiality.  Whether that superficiality be cheap grace, ceremonial laws, or religious pomp.  If you are a new creation, the law is no threat to grace and you don’t have to ignore if for fear it will make sin stronger in your life.

Quote #64:

“Now would you like to know what Revelation 3:15-16 really means?  The two verses would only make sense when they are interpreted in the light of the mixture of covenants of law and grace in the church of Laodicea.  The Lord was saying that He would the church be cold—entirely under law, or hot—entirely under grace.”

Chapter 20, page 264

NOTE:  This is more allegorical preaching that pulls doctrine out of thin air.   But since Pastor Prince brought it up, mixing up covenants is a bad idea; teaching the law and grace together in their proper context is actually a GOOD idea.  That’s why it they are taught side-by-side throughout the New Testament (see response to Quote #1).

Quote #65:

“Paul told the Galatians, ‘Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace’ (Galatians 5:4).  This is the true definition of ‘falling from grace.’  Today, when someone sins, ministers say that the person has ‘fallen from grace.’  But Paul never told the Corinthians they were fallen from grace despite all their sins.  To fall from grace then is to fall into the law.”

Chapter 20, page 267

NOTE:  Falling from grace in this context simply means they reverted back to self-righteousness—thus, they fell into sin.

One can also do “despite the Spirit of Grace” by committing willful sin according to Hebrews 10:26-29.  One can twist the scriptures (or the teachings of Paul specifically) to their own destruction instead of “growing in grace” according to II Peter 3:15-18.   Or one can “fail of the grace of God” like Esau did in Hebrews 12:15.  Or one can invent their own doctrine of grace as a means to fulfill lust, like the ungodly men of Jude 4 did.  Either way, there is more than one way to fall from grace, whether we use this phrase or another.

Quote #66:

“The law makes everything of man’s efforts, while grace gives all the glory to God.  That is why Paul told the Galatians that the gospel is not a man-pleasing gospel.  He was essentially saying, ‘If I want to please man, I would be preaching the law.’”

Chapter 20, page 268

NOTE:  Paul was essentially saying he wasn’t a man-pleaser because he just finished saying let the other guy who is preaching a DIFFERENT gospel (the one this church just embraced), LET HIM BE DAMNED!  Paul had some grit!  I like him!  (See Galatians 1:6-10).

Quote #67:

“The question we should be asking is, ‘Did Jesus tell us to fast?’  Now, I know that when Jesus’ disciples were unable to cast out a certain spirit from a boy, the NKJV (as well as the KJV) Bible does record that Jesus, in reference to the spirit, said, ‘This kind can come out by nothing but prayer and fasting.’…But do you know that in the original Greek text, the word ‘fasting’ does not appear in that verse?  It was added by the translators!  And if you look at the NASB and NIV translations, you won’t find the word ‘fasting’ in that verse.”

Chapter 21, page 274-275

NOTE:  I don’t even like fasting J, but I feel compelled to respond anyway:

We have no way of saying that “FASTING” is not in the original Greek text BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT!  What we have, are numerous copies of the original Greek text, most of which include the word “fasting.”  Which is more likely, most of the copies are wrong or a couple copies accidently left a word out?  Even the earliest copies which are considered among the highest in manuscript authorities have accidental omissions.  Nevertheless, we literally have THOUSANDS of early manuscripts to compare to determine with a great deal of accuracy what passages and words were in the original text.  Which is why it was overwhelmingly decided with very little debate from most theologians, old or new, that “fasting” should be included.  Besides that, if you believe “fasting” was a copy error, (later addition by fasting enthusiasts) in Mark 9:29, then you must make the case that “fasting” as it is recorded in Matthew 17:21 is a copy error/(later addition by fasting enthusiasts) as well.  Where does it stop?

The fact is, “fasting” was practiced by Jesus as well as in the book of Acts.  There is some dispute over its usage in I Corinthians 7:5 as well, but there is nothing unscriptural about taking a break from indulging the flesh for awhile to focus on prayer.

Quote #68:

“Now, do I fast?  Yes, I do, in the sense that many a time, I am so preoccupied with the Lord in prayer or with studying His Word that I forget to eat…I unconsciously miss my regular meals, and I even find myself forgoing sleep to be in His presence.  But I don’t consciously go on a fast, believing that fasting would get me my miracle.”

Chapter 21, page 276-277

NOTE:  So the short answer is, “Only if it’s accidental”?

Even though fasting is not something we do to try to earn God’s attention or answered prayer, it still can be beneficial to the New Testament believer.

For examples of the purpose an benefits of fasting, see the following scriptures:

Matthew 17:14-21; Psalm 35:13; II Samuel 12:16-23; Matthew 4:1-11; Psalm 69:10; I Corinthians 7:5; I Kings 21:27; Daniel 6:18; I Kings 21:27; Ezra 8:21; Esther 4; Acts 27:9; Acts 9; Matthew 6:16-18; Matthew 9:15 & Matthew 17:14-21.

Quote #69:

“When Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan, a voice from heaven said, ‘This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased…When the devil said, ‘Command these STONES to become bread,’ he was, in fact, telling Jesus to get His nourishment from the law that was written on STONES.  Now look at Jesus’ reply:  ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’…What did God just say to Jesus before He entered the wilderness?  He had said, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’  This is the word that we are to live by today as well!”

Chapter 22, pages 295-297

NOTE:  To the casual observer, one would assume that when Satan told Jesus to turn stones into bread it was because He was hungry after not eating for forty days! Evidently, it was because Satan wanted Him to study the law of Moses and come under death and condemnation.  Fortunately, Jesus outwitted Satan by responding with therhema word from God:  God loves me!  (The coded exchange used by both Jesus and Satan here is so deep; it is AMAZING that either one was able to decipher the other’s witty word-plays!

Quote #70:

“The Lord told me many years ago, ‘Son, your ministry is to roll away the stone.’  Let me explain to you what this means.  In the story of Lazarus, Jesus commanded the people to roll away the stone from Lazarus’ tomb…My friend, the stone is a picture of the law.”

Chapter 22, page 298

NOTE:  Book burning anyone?