I came across this review written by Dr Gordon Wong, Old Testament professor with Trinity Theological College. There is wisdom to be gained from reading and reflecting on what he has to say about Joseph Prince’s teaching in his book “Destined to Reign”.
I recently read the book Destined to Reign (2007) by Joseph Prince, the senior pastor of New Creation Church. When I conveyed some of my thoughts on the book, one of my pastoral colleagues thought it would be helpful if I shared them with more Methodists. Let me begin by saying that Pastor Prince’s emphasis on grace has been a great blessing from God to many. My nephew and cousin belong to New Creation church and have grown immensely in their relationship with God. My prayer is that God will use Prince’s gifts of preaching to even more blessed effect as he allows the Holy Spirit to convict him (graciously, as always) of areas that could be improved. I hope my comments below will be helpful towards that end.
1. Prince’s teaching on God’s Grace and Anger
His emphasis on grace has led some to accuse him of giving Christians a licence to sin. He vehemently rejects this criticism (e.g. p. 30) and explains that a person who has properly experienced grace is one who is inspired and empowered to turn away from sin.
What I like: the book’s stress on the power of God’s grace is correct. The grace of God in the Bible is meant to inspire holiness, and not allow sinfulness. The book’s strong emphasis on grace is true to the Bible. Self-condemnation and guilt are real problems that afflict many people today, and the message of God’s grace is truly good news.
What I had reservations about:
In stressing grace, the book appears to suggest that God no longer gets angry with Christians. If this is what it really means to teach, then this is not biblical. On p. 41, read: “We do see God being angry in the Old Testament, and in the book of Revelation, where his anger is toward those who have rejected Jesus. But for you and me, believers in the new covenant, we are not part of the Old Testament and we will never be punished because we have already received Jesus. As believers, God is no longer angry with us because all His anger for our sins fell upon Jesus at the cross.”I suspect (and hope) that what the book really means is that God’s anger is not the type that takes delight in condemning us and pointing out how horrible we are. Also, I think (and hope) that what the book means to say is that God’s anger and punishment on believers does not result in the loss of eternal salvation. But to say the above is very different from saying that God gets angry only with unbelievers and never with true believers (p. 41), or to insist that “the Holy Spirit never convicts you of sin” (p.134). Does the Bible really say that God never gets angry with believers anymore? In the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), God is presented as getting angry with believers. For example, the letters to the 7 churches (i.e. people who profess to be believers) in Revelation 2-3 include a lot of stinging rebuke and condemnation from Jesus himself, including the use of threats of punishment and judgement. (I find attempts to say that the “churches” in Revelation do not really refer to believers as far-fetched.) God Himself seems to punish two professing believers Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Isn’t this an example of the Holy Spirit, through Peter, convicting Ananias and Sapphira of their sins? Or must we assume the (not so gracious) judgement that Ananias and Sapphira cannot have been true believers?? For argument’s sake, even if they were not true believers, they were certainly in the church assembly. So there is place still for Spirit-inspired preaching for the conviction of sin within church walls. There may be many “believers” like Ananias and Sapphira who need the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and our need for grace. Perhaps the book could have made a clearer distinction between divine anger at Christians that results in the loss of eternal salvation (which is what he is most concerned to speak against) and divine anger at Christians that aims to correct and discipline (which he seems to reject). To be fair, Prince does accept the positive idea of child discipline or training (pp. 65-67), but he rejects any association of this discipline with the words “anger” or “punishment”.
God’s anger was, and can still be an expression of His love and grace, just like a loving mother who sometimes scolds her child. (Prince is, hopefully, only joking when he implies, p.37, that children will become schizophrenic if parents sometimes express happiness and at other times anger!) To say that God will never get angry or punish believers anymore may promote (unwittingly or mistakenly) a distortion of the Bible’s teaching about God’s grace. God’s anger is an expression of His love and grace towards his children. Prince would perhaps do better to speak of righteous anger (Ephesians 4:26) versus unrighteous anger. God never gets (unrighteously) angry with us, but loving grace demands a place for righteous anger as long as His beloved children still need discipline.
2. Prince’s teaching on Law
The book is very strong on rejecting the value of the Law in the OT as being of any positive help for Christians. For example, on p.120 there is a section entitled “The Ten Commandments Kill” and it says that these commandments are “the ministry of death”.
What I like: I think (and hope) that the book is trying to say two biblical things about the Law. Firstly, it may be warning us that the Ten Commandments can be used or preached in a condemning way that destroys the soul of people and makes them cringe in fear or turn away from God as a harsh Master. This is a good biblical warning. Secondly, the book’s description of the Law as a ministry of death rather than life correctly describes and reinforces the biblical view that obedience to the Law cannot lead us to receive salvation. It is correct and very good of Prince to speak against those who are “trying to use the Ten Commandments to remove their sins” (p.124). We are saved by grace, not by obedience to the Ten Commandments or the Law. If these two points represent what Prince teaches on the Law in the Bible, then this is good and biblical.
What I had reservations about: That the Law can be preached and understood in such a way as to promote soul-destroying guilt and deeper condemnation is certainly true. Prince is to be commended for eloquently highlighting this biblical warning about the danger of the Law, and stressing the wonderful grace of God that forgives us all through Christ. But while there are many who need this message of God’s grace-filled forgiveness to save them from their guilt and despair over sin, there are many others who need the message of God’s grace-filled discipline and rebuke to save them from presumption and indifference to sin. Prince’s emphasis on free and full forgiveness is very good at helping the former, but not so good for the latter. Does Prince believe that guilt is the only problem people have because of sin? If so, that would present an incomplete picture. Sin does not only imprison us in guilt; it also lulls us into indifference and presumption. The Bible addresses both these effects of sin. The book appears to suggest that there is no way of preaching the Law in a graceful manner in order to set us free from our sinful indifference and presumption.
Similarly, Prince is correct to stress that the Law cannot save or justify, but his writings give the impression that the Law has no other positive function except to prove that we cannot be saved by it. But the Law in the Bible is also presented as a positive expression of God’s grace in telling us what God desires. But because Prince contrasts Law and Grace in this manner, he gives the impression of implying that the Law has only the negative value of telling people that they cannot be saved by their attempts at obedience to the Law. The Law certainly does perform that valuable function, but it does much more as well. It helps us know what is good in God’s eyes. The book is weak on emphasising the ongoing value of the Law for both Christians and unbelievers.
To be fair to this book, there are certain parts of the Bible that also speak in similarly strong negative tones against the Law (e.g. most of Galatians and parts of the books of Romans and Hebrews). But this negative view is balanced out in other parts of the Bible that are very positive about the Law (e.g. Jesus in Matt 5:19-20; James 1:25; Psalm 119 etc.). In other words, the Law as a means of salvation is spoken of very negatively in the Bible, but the Law as a means of showing us God’s pleasure or desire for our lives is spoken of very positively. The book seems to emphasise only the negative picture of the Law. Doing so would fail to do justice to the biblical balance which speaks also of the ongoing positive value of the Law for Christians. Paul, himself, could sum up the Law very positively as teaching us to love one another (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8,10).
3. Prince’s teaching on Healing
Healing is a big topic in the Bible, and it is not the main theme of Prince’s book. But from the little he says in his final full chapter “Good Things Happen” (pp. 287ff), Prince relates testimonies of people who were healed when they received the grace and forgiveness of God. He also states that “once you know that you have been forgiven of all your sins, past, present and future, the healing of all our diseases follows” (p.290).
What I like: I think Prince is correct to say that the Bible speaks of a God who heals our diseases, and this is a true expression of the forgiveness and grace of God. Physical healing is taught and prayed for and experienced in the Bible.
What I had reservations about: Whilst the book speaks of Bible passages where physical healing is expected and takes place, it says nothing about the passages that accept (without surprise or anguish) that miraculous physical healing did not take place e.g. 2 Tim 4:20; Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Tim 5:23; Gal 4:13-14. Incidentally, Galatians 4:13-14 tells us explicitly that Paul did have a bodily sickness which resulted in the greater good of the Gospel being preached contra Prince’s statement that “Paul did not suffer any sickness or disease” (p. 71). The problem is not so much with what Prince affirms viz. that healing is a blessing from a God who is full of grace; the problem is with what he omits to affirm viz. that physical illness without healing on earth can also fall within the gracious providence of God. The Bible teaches us both to pray for physical healing and to be prepared to endure illness with patient endurance. The victorious Christian life is one that remains faithful to God in both times of abundance and poverty, in sickness or in health, for richer or for poorer (cf. Philippians 4:12-13). I do not know the ministry of Prince well enough to be sure of what he really thinks about healing on earth. Perhaps if you listen long enough to his sermons, you may be able to make a fairer assessment. Does he preach to help Christians cope with the onslaught of poverty and illness, or does he speak only of removing sickness and suffering by effortless faith? We need both messages, because that is the balance we find in Scripture.
In general, most preachers are prone to partial teaching. We all tend to favour one side of the balance more than the other as a result of our personal experience of God’s dealings with us. The danger comes when we imply that the side we prefer is the only true side of biblical truth!
May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we seek to live in ways that befit those who have been saved by such a wonderful grace as that which our Lord Jesus has lavished on us.
Postscript: There are several places where I do not agree with Prince’s interpretation of the Bible verses (e.g. pp. 124f on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; p.263-65 on the cold, hot and lukewarm Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16), but these are disagreements over the interpretation of specific phrases that can commonly be found amongst devout Bible teachers. My comments above focus on some major issues that discerning Christians should reflect on more carefully.
His name was Peter Loke and I forgot his name. He greeted me by name as we stood in the Suntec covention hall elevator together with the guest workshop speaker on a wheel-chair. I was impressed he remembered my name, and I felt I had mattered to him. I was embarassed and perturbed that I knew his name but my mental secretary could not retrieve the folder with his name in it. Granted he was an acquaintance I got to know in merely a few meetings a decade ago when he explained to me some of the Eagles ministry programs. He was gentle, friendly, warm and clear in communication. I liked him and wondered why this nice guy wasn’t married then. I remembered having pulled his leg about this until one day he happily informed me he had tied the knot, and I went, Praise the Lord, that’s wonderful! So I kicked myself for not remembering his name and later during the leadership conference when I found out his name I was looking for an opportunity to say, Hey Peter Loke, so that he knows he is somebody to me, but it was not to be. Now its really too late. This morning I saw three obituaries for Peter Loke and my heart dropped like a breakfast plate. Lord, he’s just about my age. Another one just after Anthony Yeo is one too much. I wish I had remembered his name. I wish I had time to say, Hey Peter Loke! I wish I had coffee with him. Now he has gone home.