Why Joseph Prince is a Cancerous Growth within God's People

[JGIG]

"Get results?" Really. Did I just join a shareholder's meeting? And here I was thinking this was about the God of the Bible, not a self-help shareholder's meeting. Do I get my money back too? Is shipping and handling on me or...?

Really Get results? Sad! Really sad. When the Bible comes down to "what goodies do I get in this arrangement," I would think that's a clear sign someone's not reading it right. Funny thing. And then blaming it on others.

Thank you for the nice demonstration of Princism. I didn't even know you were part of his guerilla marketing campaign.

Inflammatory language is a form of speech that is used with the intent to stir up emotions, elicit anger, or invoke a physical reaction. Name calling is one form, but the use is generally wider in scope, in the sense that it is used to attack, oppress, or denigrate groups of people, or focus hate or anger on a public figure.

Why it's nasty

Inflammatory language can include single words, phrases, names, or various discourse strategies. Whereas a textbook would be non-inflammatory because its factual and dry nature wouldn't offend, inflammatory language often intentionally provokes a reaction from the reader by use of strong rhetoric or controversial opinions.
(source)
​

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Yes, of course they thank you. And in 1-5 years when they realize it doesn't work, then the aftereffects hit.

BTW, since you brought it up, it truly is amazing what God has done in our lives. He is very worthy to be adored.

Having been a believer for 43 years now, I've watched believers who have lived under different theological 'systems', from mainstream streams of faith to the aberrant.

Those who were being pointed to Christ, His Work, and who we are in Him usually have stability in their lives. When folks are being pointed to Christ, even if the theological paradigm they're a part of is imperfect, Christ tends to sort out the Truth and errors to which they hold.

If, however, the believer is more attached to their theology than to Christ Himself, folks get more wrapped up in ideology than in Christ and loving others.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Taken from the link in the OP
PRINCE’S REJECTION OF CONFESSION

Prince’s unbiblical view of grace leads him to reject the Christian practice of confessing sin. He writes, “In that very instance when you prayed the prayer of salvation all the sins that you would commit for your entire life were forgiven once and for all….Let me say this plainly: You do not need to confess your sins again and again to be forgiven” (emphasis in original).24 He reasons Paul did not write about confessing sins,25 and 1 John 1:9 does not apply to Christians but to Gnostics who did not believe sin existed.26
Christ’s death is sufficient for making atonement for all the sins of the repentant, but when Christians stumble, confession of sin is the norm. James instructs believers to “confess your sins to one another” (James 1:16; cf. Luke 11:4).
Paul may not have explicitly given instructions to confess sin, but he does not condemn the practice. In fact, the statement, “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1) implies the fallen brother’s confession.
The idea that 1 John 1:9 applies to Gnostics but not to Christians has no basis in reality. Rather than denying sin’s existence, Gnostics believed matter is evil.27 Moreover, 1 John 1 is not addressing a Gnostic error, but broadly defining darkness and light. Those in darkness say they have no sin (v. 8), but those in light confess their sin (v. 9). The idea is this: “The proper Christian attitude to sin is not to deny it but to admit it, and then to receive the forgiveness which God has made possible and promises to us.”28


24.Prince, Unmerited Favor, 191.
25Ibid., 186–87.
26.Ibid., 189.
27.Miethe, 98.
28.John Stott, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 19 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 82.


​

(The above was my pet peeve against the 'Princetonian' movement.)

I'm quite surprised by many here that would want to shut up the ones who believe they are warning against false teachers.

One of the duties of a Christian is to give warning of wolves approaching; yet we have 'sheep' who disdain the warnings and rather side with the aberrant teachers.

If a person is convicted a teacher/teaching is false and lays out documentation supporting such claim, as did the OP, is your response to personally attack the crier or bring forth a reasonable rebuttal?

Look up the word 'warn' in a concordance...it is Scriptural.

I know you find long posts tedious, but I've broken this down into bite-sized pieces for you :

Let's take the above piece by piece:

Prince’s unbiblical view of grace leads him to reject the Christian practice of confessing sin. He writes, “In that very instance when you prayed the prayer of salvation all the sins that you would commit for your entire life were forgiven once and for all….Let me say this plainly: You do not need to confess your sins again and again to be forgiven” (emphasis in original)​

A few things for you to ponder:

• What is required for the forgiveness of sins?

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (from Heb. 9)​

• If the Blood of Christ did not provide for the forgiveness of all sins (not preaching universalism here - the gift of forgiveness must be received), then more blood MUST be shed for future sins, yes?

• Is Jesus coming back to shed more of His Blood, EVER? No? Why not?

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (from Heb. 9)​

• Scripturally, what is the penalty for sin?

Death?​

Turning from sin?​

Requests to God for additional forgiveness?​

• How many of the people who received forgiveness from Jesus while He ministered here on earth were required to confess their sins to Him first?

_______________________________________________

​

.24 He [JP] reasons Paul did not write about confessing sins,25 and 1 John 1:9 does not apply to Christians but to Gnostics who did not believe sin existed. 26 Christ’s death is sufficient for making atonement for all the sins of the repentant, but when Christians stumble, confession of sin is the norm.​

• Whether you agree or not about 1 John 1:9 being written with Gnostics in mind, you still have to reconcile HOW MANY sins were forgiven at the Cross. I don't disagree that confession of sin is the norm for Christians, but the question is what does Scripture require? Confession for more forgiveness? Again, what is required for forgiveness? The shedding of blood. Is it finished or isn't it?
  ________________________________________

James instructs believers to “confess your sins to one another” (James 1:16; cf. Luke 11:4).​

• James instructs believers to confess their sins to who? And for what purpose? Let's look at James 5 (not James 1):13-16:

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (from James 5)​

Note that "he will be forgiven" comes before "confess your sins one to another". Why? Because the sin issue between God and the believer has already been dealt with. That portion of Scripture has to do with living in community with other believers - being transparent about sin with a trusted few in order to be prayed for and healed in those areas.
_______________________________________​

Paul may not have explicitly given instructions to confess sin, but he does not condemn the practice. In fact, the statement, “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1) implies the fallen brother’s confession.​

• Confession to WHO? For what purpose? I deduce that it is for the same reason that James talks about - Paul is talking about living in community with other believers and being transparent about sinning for the purpose of receiving help to overcome sinning, not for the forgiveness from God for sin.
  
  Again, the forgiveness issue between God and man was settled at the Cross. If you are in Christ, you are a forgiven person, and depends on what Christ has already accomplished and you receiving that Work, and does not depend on your ability or willingness to 'keep short accounts with God' by confession and the repeated asking of forgiveness for sins already forgiven.
  ___________________________________________

The idea that 1 John 1:9 applies to Gnostics but not to Christians has no basis in reality. Rather than denying sin’s existence, Gnostics believed matter is evil.27 Moreover, 1 John 1 is not addressing a Gnostic error, but broadly defining darkness and light. Those in darkness say they have no sin (v. 8), but those in light confess their sin (v. 9). The idea is this: “The proper Christian attitude to sin is not to deny it but to admit it, and then to receive the forgiveness which God has made possible and promises to us.”28​

• The questions that must be answered in order to properly represent the Gospel remains:
  
  How many sins were forgiven at the Cross?
  
  If further forgiveness is required, what MUST occur, according to Scripture?
  
  Is that going to happen? Why or why not? (Again, refer to Scripture for the answers to these questions.)
  
  
  
• Joseph Prince does not preach the denial of sin in the believer's life. He does preach - and properly so - that ALL sin was dealt with at the Cross, and that we are secure in the forgiveness that we have received, even when we mess up.
  
  BECAUSE that is the case, we can ALWAYS approach the throne of Grace in our times of need (struggles with sinning):

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (from Heb. 4)​

Please note that I'm not going to Prince's teaching on any of the above, but going to Scripture to answer the questions that must be raised regarding the above assertions. I pray that you would be able to set aside the biases you hold (we all have them), and look afresh at the above.

Grace and peace,
-JGIG

 

[crossnote]

I know you find long posts tedious, but I've broken this down into bite-sized pieces for you :

Let's take the above piece by piece:

Prince’s unbiblical view of grace leads him to reject the Christian practice of confessing sin. He writes, “In that very instance when you prayed the prayer of salvation all the sins that you would commit for your entire life were forgiven once and for all….Let me say this plainly: You do not need to confess your sins again and again to be forgiven” (emphasis in original)​

A few things for you to ponder:

• What is required for the forgiveness of sins?

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (from Heb. 9)​

• If the Blood of Christ did not provide for the forgiveness of all sins (not preaching universalism here - the gift of forgiveness must be received), then more blood MUST be shed for future sins, yes?

• Is Jesus coming back to shed more of His Blood, EVER? No? Why not?

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (from Heb. 9)​

• Scripturally, what is the penalty for sin?

Death?​

Turning from sin?​

Requests to God for additional forgiveness?​

• How many of the people who received forgiveness from Jesus while He ministered here on earth were required to confess their sins to Him first?

_______________________________________________

​

.24 He [JP] reasons Paul did not write about confessing sins,25 and 1 John 1:9 does not apply to Christians but to Gnostics who did not believe sin existed. 26 Christ’s death is sufficient for making atonement for all the sins of the repentant, but when Christians stumble, confession of sin is the norm.​

• Whether you agree or not about 1 John 1:9 being written with Gnostics in mind, you still have to reconcile HOW MANY sins were forgiven at the Cross. I don't disagree that confession of sin is the norm for Christians, but the question is what does Scripture require? Confession for more forgiveness? Again, what is required for forgiveness? The shedding of blood. Is it finished or isn't it?
  ________________________________________

James instructs believers to “confess your sins to one another” (James 1:16; cf. Luke 11:4).​

• James instructs believers to confess their sins to who? And for what purpose? Let's look at James 5 (not James 1):13-16:

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (from James 5)​

Note that "he will be forgiven" comes before "confess your sins one to another". Why? Because the sin issue between God and the believer has already been dealt with. That portion of Scripture has to do with living in community with other believers - being transparent about sin with a trusted few in order to be prayed for and healed in those areas.
_______________________________________​

Paul may not have explicitly given instructions to confess sin, but he does not condemn the practice. In fact, the statement, “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1) implies the fallen brother’s confession.​

• Confession to WHO? For what purpose? I deduce that it is for the same reason that James talks about - Paul is talking about living in community with other believers and being transparent about sinning for the purpose of receiving help to overcome sinning, not for the forgiveness from God for sin.
  
  Again, the forgiveness issue between God and man was settled at the Cross. If you are in Christ, you are a forgiven person, and depends on what Christ has already accomplished and you receiving that Work, and does not depend on your ability or willingness to 'keep short accounts with God' by confession and the repeated asking of forgiveness for sins already forgiven.
  ___________________________________________

The idea that 1 John 1:9 applies to Gnostics but not to Christians has no basis in reality. Rather than denying sin’s existence, Gnostics believed matter is evil.27 Moreover, 1 John 1 is not addressing a Gnostic error, but broadly defining darkness and light. Those in darkness say they have no sin (v. 8), but those in light confess their sin (v. 9). The idea is this: “The proper Christian attitude to sin is not to deny it but to admit it, and then to receive the forgiveness which God has made possible and promises to us.”28​

• The questions that must be answered in order to properly represent the Gospel remains:
  
  How many sins were forgiven at the Cross?
  
  If further forgiveness is required, what MUST occur, according to Scripture?
  
  Is that going to happen? Why or why not? (Again, refer to Scripture for the answers to these questions.)
  
  
  
• Joseph Prince does not preach the denial of sin in the believer's life. He does preach - and properly so - that ALL sin was dealt with at the Cross, and that we are secure in the forgiveness that we have received, even when we mess up.
  
  BECAUSE that is the case, we can ALWAYS approach the throne of Grace in our times of need (struggles with sinning):

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (from Heb. 4)​

Please note that I'm not going to Prince's teaching on any of the above, but going to Scripture to answer the questions that must be raised regarding the above assertions. I pray that you would be able to set aside the biases you hold (we all have them), and look afresh at the above.

Grace and peace,
-JGIG

Maybe you were writing this when I posted my position. See post #81.

 

[know1]

That was an interesting read, thank you. I read it in Hank Hanegraaff's voice, LOL, and then I see at the end that it was written by someone else. Thank you for choosing something short. I have been witnessing this grace vs law war go on in the BDF for about half a year now *edit actually probably closer to a year now that I think about it*. It seems both sides agree that Grace allows one to keep the law and obey the commandments, which Jesus summed up as loving God, and your neighbor as yourself. The sticking point seems to be related to disobedience, and whether or not one can lose their salvation. Of course, the whole WoF movement comes with a whole lot of other promises and problems also, not the least of which is the slap in the face to those who are not healed of their infirmities and are left with the distinct impression they are being told that their lack of faith is at fault for their lack of healing.

PS~ Robby's pictures say the image is too big.

A lack of faith is only part of the problem.
Another problem is a lack of repentance and confession of their sin.
In most cases, the sickness is a result of the person's sin or that of their parents or spouse.
The fact is, God shows throughout scripture that He punishes, chastens, rebukes, judges, and the like, BECAUSE of sin, not because of their sinlessness.
The whole reason why Jesus suffered the punishment of the cross is because He became our scapegoat, and took upon Himself our sins in His own body, becoming sin or was made to be sin.
Until then, God could not have caused Jesus to suffer the punishment of the cross, according to His word.
How did John prepare the way for the Lord?
Wasn't it by getting the people to repent of their sins?
And doesn't sin blind the heart of men?
And isn't it sin or a condition of the heart, that causes most sicknesses? According to scripture it is.
Those who humbled themselves, repented, and confessed their sins, were the ones who could believe and receive their healing and deliverance.
Those who did not repent, whose hearts remained hardened, could not see or believe, nor would they repent of their sins so that they might get their healing.
The two main ingredients to getting ones healing is, repentance with confession of their sins, and to apply the faith of God towards their healing. For all the promises in Christ are yeah and amen.
Probably, the biggest hindrance to receiving their healing is that they don't really believe that it was done when they prayed or asked for it to be done.
And one of the reasons why they would think that, is because it didn't happen when they thought is should.
Another reason is because most tend to look to the natural to let them know when or that they received their healing or they couldn't believe it was done until they felt, saw, or experienced it.
The fact is, most don't know what faith is or how it works, and through their ignorance and refusal of the knowledge of God's truths, sadly, they are destroyed.

 

[notmyown]

A lack of faith is only part of the problem.
Another problem is a lack of repentance and confession of their sin.
In most cases, the sickness is a result of the person's sin or that of their parents or spouse.

please don't. please don't do that. those beginning lines are a summary of the rest of what you wrote.

please, sir, don't attempt to stand in the place of God and decide why people suffer.

"Who sinned? This man or his parents?"

the disciples of Christ weren't right about their assumptions, and i beg you not to make your own.

 

[JGIG]

The devil is in the details. Have you heard him teach on Mother Grace?

Looked it up.

The only thing I found was a clip from an interview, not 'him teaching on Mother Grace".

WARNING: The following is a total hit piece on Joseph Prince and makes HUGE leaps to reach the conclusions they reach!


[video=youtube;04RA4G3-H3Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RA4G3-H3Y[/video]


Having listened to Joseph Prince a fair bit, I can tell you that his reference to 'mother grace' was likely a reference to Galatians 4, not any reference to deifying Grace or teaching the Roman Catholic view of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Sheesh, people, read Galatians 4! I tried to find a video of that complete interview, but since the hit pieces on YouTube do not reference it, I couldn't find it. My guess is that Prince references Galatians 4 or further quotes from it clarifying what he was saying.

Just a guess, and I could be wrong, but like I said, I've listened to enough of his stuff to KNOW that he wasn't saying ANYTHING like the video tries to imply.

In essence, what Galatians 4 tells us is that those in Christ are CHILDREN of the FREE woman (Grace), not of the BOND woman (Law) - hence the language 'Mother Grace':

​

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. (from Gal. 4)​

In context with the chapter and the letter as a whole (not to mention in the context of the New Covenant), what Prince said is not some sinister coded heresy, but figurative language straight out of Gal. 4.

-JGIG

 

[seed_time_harvest]

I know you find long posts tedious, but I've broken this down into bite-sized pieces for you :

Let's take the above piece by piece:

Prince’s unbiblical view of grace leads him to reject the Christian practice of confessing sin. He writes, “In that very instance when you prayed the prayer of salvation all the sins that you would commit for your entire life were forgiven once and for all….Let me say this plainly: You do not need to confess your sins again and again to be forgiven” (emphasis in original)​

A few things for you to ponder:

• What is required for the forgiveness of sins?

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (from Heb. 9)​

• If the Blood of Christ did not provide for the forgiveness of all sins (not preaching universalism here - the gift of forgiveness must be received), then more blood MUST be shed for future sins, yes?

• Is Jesus coming back to shed more of His Blood, EVER? No? Why not?

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (from Heb. 9)​

• Scripturally, what is the penalty for sin?

Death?​

Turning from sin?​

Requests to God for additional forgiveness?​

• How many of the people who received forgiveness from Jesus while He ministered here on earth were required to confess their sins to Him first?

_______________________________________________

​

.24 He [JP] reasons Paul did not write about confessing sins,25 and 1 John 1:9 does not apply to Christians but to Gnostics who did not believe sin existed. 26 Christ’s death is sufficient for making atonement for all the sins of the repentant, but when Christians stumble, confession of sin is the norm.​

• Whether you agree or not about 1 John 1:9 being written with Gnostics in mind, you still have to reconcile HOW MANY sins were forgiven at the Cross. I don't disagree that confession of sin is the norm for Christians, but the question is what does Scripture require? Confession for more forgiveness? Again, what is required for forgiveness? The shedding of blood. Is it finished or isn't it?
  ________________________________________

James instructs believers to “confess your sins to one another” (James 1:16; cf. Luke 11:4).​

• James instructs believers to confess their sins to who? And for what purpose? Let's look at James 5 (not James 1):13-16:

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (from James 5)​

Note that "he will be forgiven" comes before "confess your sins one to another". Why? Because the sin issue between God and the believer has already been dealt with. That portion of Scripture has to do with living in community with other believers - being transparent about sin with a trusted few in order to be prayed for and healed in those areas.
_______________________________________​

Paul may not have explicitly given instructions to confess sin, but he does not condemn the practice. In fact, the statement, “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1) implies the fallen brother’s confession.​

• Confession to WHO? For what purpose? I deduce that it is for the same reason that James talks about - Paul is talking about living in community with other believers and being transparent about sinning for the purpose of receiving help to overcome sinning, not for the forgiveness from God for sin.
  
  Again, the forgiveness issue between God and man was settled at the Cross. If you are in Christ, you are a forgiven person, and depends on what Christ has already accomplished and you receiving that Work, and does not depend on your ability or willingness to 'keep short accounts with God' by confession and the repeated asking of forgiveness for sins already forgiven.
  ___________________________________________

The idea that 1 John 1:9 applies to Gnostics but not to Christians has no basis in reality. Rather than denying sin’s existence, Gnostics believed matter is evil.27 Moreover, 1 John 1 is not addressing a Gnostic error, but broadly defining darkness and light. Those in darkness say they have no sin (v. 8), but those in light confess their sin (v. 9). The idea is this: “The proper Christian attitude to sin is not to deny it but to admit it, and then to receive the forgiveness which God has made possible and promises to us.”28​

• The questions that must be answered in order to properly represent the Gospel remains:
  
  How many sins were forgiven at the Cross?
  
  If further forgiveness is required, what MUST occur, according to Scripture?
  
  Is that going to happen? Why or why not? (Again, refer to Scripture for the answers to these questions.)
  
  
  
• Joseph Prince does not preach the denial of sin in the believer's life. He does preach - and properly so - that ALL sin was dealt with at the Cross, and that we are secure in the forgiveness that we have received, even when we mess up.
  
  BECAUSE that is the case, we can ALWAYS approach the throne of Grace in our times of need (struggles with sinning):

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (from Heb. 4)​

Please note that I'm not going to Prince's teaching on any of the above, but going to Scripture to answer the questions that must be raised regarding the above assertions. I pray that you would be able to set aside the biases you hold (we all have them), and look afresh at the above.

Grace and peace,
-JGIG

Excellent understanding.Good food.PRAISE GOD.

 

[Depleted]

I'm not sure where I once defended him.. In fact I don't listen to Joseph prince alot therefore I can't comment on him... Even still I have no right to just like any of us don't... It seems very much lynn that you just love to argue with people on here. Even me when all I wanna do is love everyone.. what do we gain out of being right really??

And what exactly to you is God's opinion ?? The mind of the flesh is death but the mind of the spirit is life and peace is it not? Is unity not a product of life and peace ? Can you honestly say that u leave this site feeling edified? Feeling free? Feeling at one with your brothers and sisters? Or do u feel frustrated by everyone one here? Left feeling angry and frustrated.. Only you and God know the real truth there... But remember anger and frustration are not the works of the spirit .. It's then we have to question.. What am I walking in here. God bless you xx

If you don't know him, you really should. He too preaches the everything-is-peachy-keen-and-if-it-isn't-it's-because-you-don't-want-the-peachy-keen-god.

As for what is and isn't "the works of the spirit," sure looked like Jesus was both angry and frustrated at the temple when he knocked over the money-changers' tables. But that's not the God you prefer. He's not peachy-keen.

What's the problem? I point out a heretic and the vast majority of Christians are telling not to worry about it, not our problem, who are you to judge, he's okay in my book, I don't know him, nothing to see here because it doesn't affect my life... but let me give you a flower and a smile, then tsk-tsk you for being angry at some guy simply because he's stealing some of the flock. And always, "you have anger issues" tied in there somewhere.

That's true. The church has become the sleeping giant!

 

[JGIG]

Those that ared blind to the fact that we are both sinful and forgiven simutaneously are those same ones who have difficulty seeing that we both are forgiven and need to confess our ongoing sins as the Holy Spirit convicts us of them.
The concept of 'BOTH' seems to be a hard concept to grasp and many twist their pet doctrine one direction.
Jesus is BOTH fully God, fully man.
We are BOTH risen, seated in the heavenlies yet have our being planted here on terra firma.
God's Sovereignty includes BOTH God's will and man's choice.
We are BOTH forgiven and need of forgiveness.

That's how Scripture reveals things, why should I push just one side of the issue?

I know you find long posts tedious, but I've broken this down into bite-sized pieces for you :

Let's take the above piece by piece:

Prince’s unbiblical view of grace leads him to reject the Christian practice of confessing sin. He writes, “In that very instance when you prayed the prayer of salvation all the sins that you would commit for your entire life were forgiven once and for all….Let me say this plainly: You do not need to confess your sins again and again to be forgiven” (emphasis in original)​

A few things for you to ponder:

• What is required for the forgiveness of sins?

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (from Heb. 9)​

• If the Blood of Christ did not provide for the forgiveness of all sins (not preaching universalism here - the gift of forgiveness must be received), then more blood MUST be shed for future sins, yes?

• Is Jesus coming back to shed more of His Blood, EVER? No? Why not?

24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. (from Heb. 9)​

• Scripturally, what is the penalty for sin?

Death?​

Turning from sin?​

Requests to God for additional forgiveness?​

• How many of the people who received forgiveness from Jesus while He ministered here on earth were required to confess their sins to Him first?

_______________________________________________

​

.24 He [JP] reasons Paul did not write about confessing sins,25 and 1 John 1:9 does not apply to Christians but to Gnostics who did not believe sin existed. 26 Christ’s death is sufficient for making atonement for all the sins of the repentant, but when Christians stumble, confession of sin is the norm.​

• Whether you agree or not about 1 John 1:9 being written with Gnostics in mind, you still have to reconcile HOW MANY sins were forgiven at the Cross. I don't disagree that confession of sin is the norm for Christians, but the question is what does Scripture require? Confession for more forgiveness? Again, what is required for forgiveness? The shedding of blood. Is it finished or isn't it?
  ________________________________________

James instructs believers to “confess your sins to one another” (James 1:16; cf. Luke 11:4).​

• James instructs believers to confess their sins to who? And for what purpose? Let's look at James 5 (not James 1):13-16:

13 Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working. (from James 5)​

Note that "he will be forgiven" comes before "confess your sins one to another". Why? Because the sin issue between God and the believer has already been dealt with. That portion of Scripture has to do with living in community with other believers - being transparent about sin with a trusted few in order to be prayed for and healed in those areas.
_______________________________________​

Paul may not have explicitly given instructions to confess sin, but he does not condemn the practice. In fact, the statement, “If anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal. 6:1) implies the fallen brother’s confession.​

• Confession to WHO? For what purpose? I deduce that it is for the same reason that James talks about - Paul is talking about living in community with other believers and being transparent about sinning for the purpose of receiving help to overcome sinning, not for the forgiveness from God for sin.
  
  Again, the forgiveness issue between God and man was settled at the Cross. If you are in Christ, you are a forgiven person, and depends on what Christ has already accomplished and you receiving that Work, and does not depend on your ability or willingness to 'keep short accounts with God' by confession and the repeated asking of forgiveness for sins already forgiven.
  ___________________________________________

The idea that 1 John 1:9 applies to Gnostics but not to Christians has no basis in reality. Rather than denying sin’s existence, Gnostics believed matter is evil.27 Moreover, 1 John 1 is not addressing a Gnostic error, but broadly defining darkness and light. Those in darkness say they have no sin (v. 8), but those in light confess their sin (v. 9). The idea is this: “The proper Christian attitude to sin is not to deny it but to admit it, and then to receive the forgiveness which God has made possible and promises to us.”28​

• The questions that must be answered in order to properly represent the Gospel remains:
  
  How many sins were forgiven at the Cross?
  
  If further forgiveness is required, what MUST occur, according to Scripture?
  
  Is that going to happen? Why or why not? (Again, refer to Scripture for the answers to these questions.)
  
  
  
• Joseph Prince does not preach the denial of sin in the believer's life. He does preach - and properly so - that ALL sin was dealt with at the Cross, and that we are secure in the forgiveness that we have received, even when we mess up.
  
  BECAUSE that is the case, we can ALWAYS approach the throne of Grace in our times of need (struggles with sinning):

14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (from Heb. 4)​

Please note that I'm not going to Prince's teaching on any of the above, but going to Scripture to answer the questions that must be raised regarding the above assertions. I pray that you would be able to set aside the biases you hold (we all have them), and look afresh at the above.

Grace and peace,
-JGIG

Maybe you were writing this when I posted my position. See post #81.

We were posting at the same time .

And I do understand your position, I just disagree with where you end up, though I don't think that theologically we're as far apart as you think we are.

You wrote, "Those that are blind to the fact that we are both sinful and forgiven simultaneously are those same ones who have difficulty seeing that we both are forgiven and need to confess our ongoing sins as the Holy Spirit convicts us of them."​

If you really believe what you wrote above, why do you assert that a believer must, in the context of 1 John 1:9, confess their sins to be cleansed of all unrighteousness, if indeed they are simultaneously sinful AND forgiven? If a believer is already forgiven, why do you say they must confess and ask for forgiveness you say they already have?

If that's your position, then what you're really saying is that believers are both forgiven and UNforgiven simultaneously, not that they are sinful and forgiven simultaneously. And that cannot be, Scripturally. See my above post for why that presents big problems according to the Scriptures.

You also wrote, "The concept of 'BOTH' seems to be a hard concept to grasp and many twist their pet doctrine one direction.

"Jesus is BOTH fully God, fully man.

"We are BOTH risen, seated in the heavenlies yet have our being planted here on terra firma.

"God's Sovereignty includes BOTH God's will and man's choice.


​

Agreed, and Scripture supports those concepts. But you depart from what Scripture clearly teaches here:

"We are BOTH forgiven and need of forgiveness."​

Scripture does not support that notion in any way. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness, so if the shedding of Christ's Blood at the Cross didn't provide complete forgiveness, and Scripture tells us that it did, for "He is able to save completely" (from Heb. 7:25), there IS NO MORE forgiveness available - EVER - because there is no more sacrifice for sin (Heb. 10:26).

Please take a few minutes to read through what I wrote above.

Ask yourself the questions about what Scripture has to say about the forgiveness of sins - how it was achieved and if - according to Scripture - it is possible to be both forgiven and unforgiven at the same time.

-JGIG

 

[know1]

Those that ared blind to the fact that we are both sinful and forgiven simutaneously are those same ones who have difficulty seeing that we both are forgiven and need to confess our ongoing sins as the Holy Spirit convicts us of them.
The concept of 'BOTH' seems to be a hard concept to grasp and many twist their pet doctrine one direction.
Jesus is BOTH fully God, fully man.
We are BOTH risen, seated in the heavenlies yet have our being planted here on terra firma.
God's Sovereignty includes BOTH God's will and man's choice.
We are BOTH forgiven and need of forgiveness.
That's how Scripture reveals things, why should I push just one side of the issue?

I believe, that's not how scripture reveals all the things you wrote.
Most of what you said, I believe is true.
But we are not both sinful and forgiven.
Sin may be in us through the old man, but we are not sinners when we are in the grace of God.
When you sin, you fall from grace and into condemnation, for you are no longer free from the law of sin. You are free from the law of death through the atoning blood of Jesus, but not of sin. The reason why I say that is because, in order for one to be without condemnation from the consequences of sin, one must walk after or be lead by the Spirit. And when you fall into sin, you are no longer walking after nor being lead by the Spirit of God. And because of the sin which caused you to fall from God's grace, God's protection was removed in some part of your life.
What is the law of sin, and what are it's consequences?
I suppose to answer that question, I could answer it with another question. That being, what is the law of life in Christ Jesus and it's consequences?
Sin causes sickness and judgements in the natural, to both the believer and nonbeliever, because it is written, God is a respecter of no person. That means and includes you, the believer.
When we confess our sins, we are forgiven of our sins and cleansed of ALL unrighteousness and therefore are made righteous before God again, and restored to fellowship, through the blood of Christ. We are NOT automatically forgiven and cleansed of our sins by the blood of Christ just because we are the children of God. Hence the reason for repenting and confessing our sins.
We don't lose our salvation because we have sinned, but there are still consequences in the natural that God has to fulfill because of the law of sowing and reaping. Again it is written, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. That was written to the church. Which means it includes the believer who sins.

 

[ladylynn]

Before my Cancer I was a huge believer in healing. After I didn't receive healing was angry at God for not doing what He had promised. So now a few months after my cancer surgery and what not I have really been searching why I didn't get healed. Was it because God is a liar? Was it because God only picks and chooses who He wants to heal? Or was it something I was doing in my life that was preventing the healing of God?

I don't believe God is a liar so I have to throw this one out. I also don't believe scripture backs up that God picks and chooses who He heals. So out of the three I have to conclude that possibly something in my walk with the Lord was preventing my healing. Not one of us are perfect we all allow sin in our lives. Can sin prevent blessings from God? I believe unrepentant sin can hinder our walk with the Lord and keep His blessings from us. This doesn't mean we are going to Hell. I did have unrepentant sin in my life and I needed to deal with this. Could this have kept my healing from happening? It is quite possible and I'm leaning toward this theory. I also believe that God can heal us over time. Did I allow Him to fully heal my tumor? Maybe not. I went and had the surgery so I really didn't give God a chance to work a healing through me. I expected the tumor to just disappear and everything would be ok. I have come to believe that God could use a slower healing for us to get closer to Him and learn to trust on the Lord.

So anyways I don't believe prosperity preachers are in error. Well there might be some whack jobs out there but I don't think we can lump all of these ministers into one category. I think too many of us are saying because a minister is wealthy that he is a heretic or false preacher. So the people that say this are basically saying all preachers should be poor. Like someone else mentioned, JP didn't start out wealthy, he started out small and God blessed him. If God wants to bless us with wealth then so be it. When we start giving credit to ourselves and not the Lord is where we come into problems. Was JP's desire to become wealthy or was it to serve God and then the rest just followed? If our desire is to become wealthy then we aren't doing things for the Lord. But if our desire is to serve God and God rewards us with any form of prosperity then who are we to speak negatively about what God has given someone?

Hi WarriorForChrist., I very much agree with your thoughts and conclusions in your post. What you said about healing is what I've seen to be true in my own body. Some healing is right away while other healing is 10 fold, 20 fold.,30 fold., 50 fold and on it goes as time progresses to a complete healing.

That is how my healing has worked. Each day I've seen healing happen in my body and it is the way the Lord has shown out in my life of His faithfulness.

I've also seen with each person, God deals individually and I can't compare my healing to someone else's. He wants me to keep my focus on Him all the way. It seems to be a very important factor in anything I pray about. That I always have an expectation of good coming from Him. One of the ways the enemy wins is when he can make us weary in well doing. Jesus says to keep on believing one day at a time. To not trust in my own understanding but to trust in Him because He is faithful and will do what He promised. What one of us would give a stone to our child when he asks for food? Isn't God our heavenly Father better than us? He wants us to see how far short our ways are compared to His.

How far short our love is compared to His love. And so unlike the OP is suggesting, I'm not expecting the healing Jesus died to give me to not happen. My responsibility is to keep on believing regardless of what the enemy says., regardless of what the symptoms say. I'm called to be like Jesus and have faith in the love of God for me personally. (very personally) He will not allow my foot to stumble. And He has not.

I've sort of jumped into it with both feet and He has caught me every step of the way. I am learning He really wants that kind of trust. Each day is a new revelation of His love and care for me. I'm learning each day to trust Him more and to do that regardless of what the world, the flesh and the devil say. Heb.11:1
Now faith is the assurance (the confirmation, [SUP][a][/SUP]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].

Thank you for your post of encouragement and keep believing in His faithfulness and He will not let you down. The Bible says over and over that without faith it is impossible to please God. He is pleased when we have an expectation of His love for us. Of good and not evil. It is satan who comes to kill steal and destroy us., not God. Jesus came to give life and that more abundantly. Jesus is the Great Physician and the Good Shepherd. He leads the sheep and He heals the sheep.

 

[Depleted]

More "twisting" in what is being said.....Anyone with an honest mind can see that it's just an analogy. I encourage people to listen to what he is saying and it is clearly used as an analogy.

I'll just leave this thread now for those that want to malign fellow believers in Christ. ( I know I said before this was my last post..lol...it's the deceitful things being said that urge me to respond to this post...but I am done now.....)

I will leave this thread now for people to continue to slander a fellow Christian as much as they desire. I encourage people to go check out what is really being said in other teachers videos and you will fins out for yourself what is being said about the Lord Jesus.

Everyone is a heretic to someone else on the internet if they don't believe exactly like "I" do....it's the nature of the beast in action.


1 Peter 2:1-3 (NASB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,

[SUP]2 [/SUP] like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

[SUP]3 [/SUP] if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

Yay! You can speak for yourself! So, please, point-by-point where is my link wrong? I'm open to hear the other side. I just can't because you rarely talk. You keep posting other people's words and then get upset if I take them on.

 

[Depleted]

Please provide proof that Joseph Prince has EVER said that he thinks such a thing. Lots of what he says is out there - books, interviews, hundreds of online teachings - that's quite an accusation to make without proof.

Or perhaps you're claiming to have read his mind?



Read it.

It in no way supports your notion that JP "thinks quite a few of us are worthless in God's kingdom, (if we're in his kingdom at all), because of our health issues and/or our finances."

The parts about provision/wealth and healing are disagreements in which the author does the twisting he accuses Prince of doing. Prince does not teach that "God guarantees unlimited health and wealth this side of eternity."

What Prince does teach is that poverty and sickness are not from God - that God does not PUT those things on people to 'teach them lessons' or to 'mature their faith'.

And that does go directly against your Reformed paradigm (and Reformed Theology has its issues, as well).

Perhaps your biggest beef with Prince is that he challenges the coping mechanisms you've put in place (based on your adherence to Reformed Theology) for dealing with what living in this fallen world has presented circumstantially to you and your husband.

And it's not that I'm not empathetic to your situations - our family deals with serious medical issues, as well, with one child being a Type 1 Diabetic (insulin dependent and using an insulin pump) and another in treatment for metastatic brain and spine cancer. So I get it - there is pain and suffering, not to mention financial burdens in this life - that's reality - we live in a fallen world.

Jesus said that we would have troubles in this world, but that He would never leave nor forsake us.

So while I don't believe that God PUTS illness or poverty on people, I do believe that He walks through it faithfully with them every step of the way. Sometimes He does miraculously heal, and that's awesome, but most of the time I believe He shows His faithfulness in other ways as we each walk our journeys. For us, He has led, and provided for us, excellent medical care for our children. Through the Body of Christ and through those outside of the Body, He has provided for our every need and then some as we care for our child being treated for cancer.

Our children have very healthy views about what they (and their siblings) are going through, relying on God and understanding that whatever life in this fallen world throws at us, God is there walking through it with us. And all with an eternal perspective - what happens in this life and how we deal with it (whether it is happening to us or to those around us) is of value, and it matters, but all the pain and suffering and bad stuff will fade away in Eternity.

So while I may not agree completely with JP's approach to physical healing, I do see where he's coming from. And we who are in Christ all WILL receive our physical healings at the Resurrection. To label him a 'cancerous growth within God's people', however, is over the line. State your disagreement, give Scriptures you think support your position, and move on. You will have given the warning you feel is necessary without being ugly about it.

And on the core issues, JP is solid - ANYONE can access the MANY, MANY video teachings online to see for themselves, not relying on the out of context quotes that heresy hunting folks dig up to demonize him.



Lynn, where is the evidence for those accusations? If it were true, there would be first hand accounts of what you've accused him of. Absent that evidence or first hand accounts, we're back to you being a mind-reader.

There's a particular HRM teacher (Jim Staley) that many folks wrote me about several years ago who was not only teaching obvious heresy, but also committing financial fraud. He was demonstrably spiritually abusive, with there being ample video evidence of his abuse, lies, and heresy. That man is now serving 6-8 years in federal prison for financial fraud. Folks can read a full accounting of the Staley saga HERE (not my site).

So I get it - there are bad guys out there and I'm not afraid to identify them when they cross my path, but Joseph Prince is not one of those guys, and you have no proof for the types of accusations you're making.




Yeah, we get it. We just disagree with your conclusions based on biased, heresy-hunting articles, and theological differences on secondary issues you have with Joseph Prince.

-JGIG

Paragraphs 3-5.

And, note, I went for the least biased possible. Communication degree from back in the days when reporting was different than editorializing.

 

[JGIG]

Can't he be both?

Honestly, when I first came to the Lord the church was in the midst of a change that I didn't even realize was happening for decades. (And it's still happening.) For quite a few centuries, the church was of the reformed persuasion for obvious reasons. (The Reformation.) And then a few revivals came along that started changing the face of what was commonly held belief. Wesleyism, Arminianism, personal-relationship-with-Godism (although that's a bit tongue in cheek from me.) Pastors shared their beliefs with their families, of course, and, on a not to rare occasion, sons became pastors all the while reading newer and newer books. It came to a head in the 50's-70's. The new pastors were taking some of the old and adding some of the new. They really did cross over from reformed to modernism. BUT they didn't sit back to see which of their beliefs were what they were taught compared to what they found works for them, so it was a mixed bag.

What I didn't catch on to back then was much of what I was being taught from good teachers of the Bible (and they really were good, so no complaints) had it's history in the reformation yet it's feet in modern Christianity. They really were both. It's possible. Matter of fact, it's probable. You believe what you want to believe and dump what you don't. And, Prince has openly said that's what he does. He just hasn't said it in those words, so it really is both.

So you're basically saying that only those in the reformation and you have correct theology.

Somehow I don't think that's possible.

I also think that you're projecting a bad experience with another church onto anyone who preaches from a perspective different from Reformed Theology. You do realize that Reformed Theology is but one of many theological templates which attempt to explain Scripture, yes? And that Reformed Theology is fallible, as it is a construct of man?

-JGIG

 

[oldethennew]

our Christ asks us to be Holy as He is Holy,,,,this is an aspiration that those of us who
love Him aspire to...

are we HOLY in this flesh, no, but we do aspire to be and we do make leaps and bounds
in our Holy Calling to become so...we go from Faith to Faith as He gives and we go from old to new
as He strengthens...

we must all learn what 'willful' sinning is...it is the great divider between our Love of God,
and our love of ourselves...

 

[Depleted]

Careful, Lynn, your double standard is showing. You've used outside sources to make your points, too. He placed content (with my permission to use it), while you placed a link along with a 'gotcha' title and your commentary that demonizes someone who is successfully sharing the Gospel with millions of people around the world.

BTW, I'm here now and happy to discuss what I wrote that Grace posted.

Will you address the content of the post itself or just berate Grace for posting it?

-JGIG

I will not address the content of Grace's post to Grace because it's not his words and he tends to attack me for going off on the "OP" when he IS the OP. (He's not very good with accepting that if he uses someone else's words, he's supposed to believe them all too. Kind of prefers to play innocent like, "Why pick on me? I didn't say it?" Right along side of "What's wrong with you for daring to disagree?")

I will most assuredly take it on IF you say it and I can address you, with one huge caveat.

It may take weeks, possibly months, to do so. And that strictly because I'm over my head IRL and don't have a whole lot of time to play around on here anymore. So, if you want it done properly, let me take you on realizing it will take some time to do so, because I would have to do the homework, along with live my life, take care of hubby, and scootchies 1,001 other tasks I have to do before hubby comes home.

Acceptable?

 

[Depleted]

Careful, Lynn, your double standard is showing. You've used outside sources to make your points, too. He placed content (with my permission to use it), while you placed a link along with a 'gotcha' title and your commentary that demonizes someone who is successfully sharing the Gospel with millions of people around the world.

BTW, I'm here now and happy to discuss what I wrote that Grace posted.

Will you address the content of the post itself or just berate Grace for posting it?

-JGIG

Oh, as for outside source. I'm not against them, but if I'm using it, I stand by it. Did you even read it? Because that's not a double standard. You're comparing my standard to Grace's -- apples and spacecrafts.

 

[JGIG]

Paragraphs 3-5.

And, note, I went for the least biased possible. Communication degree from back in the days when reporting was different than editorializing.

Oh now THAT'S funny. What you're doing here is ANYTHING BUT reporting. You're OP title and text are TOTAL hit piece/editorializing!

I will give you this, though, I have seen articles that are far worse than the one you cited. They still get it wrong, though, and you continue with false accusations with zero proof.

reporting . . . Bwahahahahahah! You're a very funny lady!

-JGIG

 

[Depleted]

Thank you Grace777x77 and JGIG for posting this information. Joseph Prince has helped me understand Grace far more than any church I ever went to.
Under Grace

He sure has -- falsely. You will figure it out sometime in the future. Try not to blame God for Prince's false teachings.