WORKGROUP

BACK TO THE BIBLE

Kampen, letter 38, 15 September 2010 (in addition to letter 31 on Joseph Prince in Singapore) Dear readers, he teachings o! Joseph Prince !rom Singapore do ha"e more in!l#ence than $e, as a $or%gro#p, assessed& 'n o#r letter 31 !rom 1 (pril 200) $e tho#ght these teachings $ere primaril* !oc#ssed on the prosperit* gospel as $e sho$ed in this letter& +o$e"er, $e ha"e paid too little attention to his position $ith regard to ,race& (n anon*mo#s reader o! o#r letters independentl* st#died the complete teaching o! Joseph Prince and committed his !indings into $riting& his st#d* is so complete and $ell-!o#nded that $e decided to p#t the res#lts o! his st#d* on o#r $ebsite in addition to o#r st#d* o! 1 (pril 200)& Some$here in the article the anon*mo#s $riter gi"es #s the ad"ice not to s$allo$ e"er*thing, b#t to e.amine things !or o#rsel"es& /e agree $ith him, !or $e belie"e that *o#, as a 0hristian $ith the +ol* Spirit as resident Spirit, are able to 1#dge !or *o#rsel!& 2elo$ *o# $ill !ind the complete st#d* o! the anon*mo#s researcher& /e did not change an*thing o! its content& 3nl* on page 18 $e made a remar% on the $riter4s e.planation o! the idea o! original sin& 2#t $e made a !e$ small lang#age corrections& /ith a lot o! than%s to the $riter $e no$ gi"e *o# the opport#nit* to go deepl* in his or her !indings&

Joseph Prince Theology of the New Creation Church in Singapore

Translation mrs. Silvia van Dijk

3nl* a consideration5

contents
Introduction ................................................................................................3 Some Faith Theses of Joseph Prince .................................................................6 Differences in background ..............................................................................7 La and !race " putting something straight .......................................................# $easoning from a predetermined image of !od ..................................................%& Joseph Prince and room for nuance ................................................................%% 'pp(ication of Logic .....................................................................................%) *eing +is(ed b, the Phrasing of the -uestion ....................................................%3 La .........................................................................................................%3 *ringing Sin to Light. /a0e Sin increased .........................................................%1 La Stimu(ates 2arna( Desire ........................................................................%3 Status of Sin ..............................................................................................%6 'sking for Forgi0eness .................................................................................%# ' 2hristian 2an 4e0er Lose /is Sa(0ation .........................................................)& 5ur 2onscience ..........................................................................................)) The Lord6s Pra,er ........................................................................................)) /ea(ing Through /o(, 2ommunion ................................................................)3 The 7ord Faith Theo(og, ..............................................................................)3 5rienta( Inf(uences ......................................................................................)8 I((ness ......................................................................................................)# 2onc(usion ................................................................................................3&

Introduction
It is not the basic princip(e of this document to present a comprehensi0e picture of the so9ca((ed Singapore Theo(og,. but it comes up ith some specia( points of 0ie hich are up to the reader to :udge. +ost te;ts ha0e been taken from (ectures of the 4e 2reation 2hurch or their Dutch trans(ations. 5ther te;ts ha0e been taken from ebsites hich ha0e direct(, <uoted te;ts from this church or their interpretations. *ut b, far the most information is obtained from the book(ets Health and Wholeness Through the Holy communion, Your Miracle is in Your Mouth and A Life Worth Living . a(( pub(ications b, Joseph Prince. The so9ca((ed =Just !race Theo(og,> caused <uite a (ot of commotion. For man, 2hristians it (eads to confusion because most of the terms correspond ith the usage in e0ange(ica( congregations so it is hard to interpret here it differs ith this theo(og,. +oreo0er. a (ot of e0ange(ica( 2hristians from their backgrounds pro0e to ha0e sticked to the picture in hich the La sti(( carries :udgment and punishment. That it is precise(, the Singapore Theo(og, hich causes such a discussion and makes so man, peop(e fee( set free and others become confused. might be caused b, the fact that in the fu(( gospe( e apparent(, cou(d not ade<uate(, indicate the purposes of the La and of !race and that the, are not at odds ith each other. If e had been ab(e to put this as a so(id foundation in the e0ange(ica( mo0ement. the discussion ith the Singapore Theo(og, ou(d not ha0e started and so man, peop(e ithin the fu(( gospe( ou(d not ha0e strugg(ed ith the La . 2riticism against the theo(og, of Joseph Prince. hich ,ou can read here and there on the internet. is often shamefu( superficia( and particu(ar(, 0er, sub:ecti0e. !enera((, it is especia((, Joseph Prince6s a, of speech and his demagogica( <ua(ities that are critici?ed. In the same a, ,ou cou(d denounce most 'merican preachers. hi(e. of course. man, a,s of speech are :udged ithin the frame of reference of the (oca( cu(ture. Joseph Prince is a ski((ed speaker and one can (ike or dis(ike. but that is not determining. It is striking that most opponents pass much. but at the same time 0er, superficia( criticism. The same is the case ith the proponents and thus ,ou see a(( kind of comments are f(,ing ithout pursuing the contents in greater depth. !i0ing comments is something ,ou cannot do fri0o(ous(,. 'fter a((. it is not about critici?ing someone but about :udging the message and compare it ith the *ib(e. *ut both the proponents and the opponents take the 0ie that the, use the *ib(e as the guide(ine on hich the, bui(d their theor,. 7hen refuting theories it is una0oidab(e to carefu((,

interpret scriptura( passages in the conte;t of the *ib(e. Proponents. on the other hand. often tend to use the argument that @Jesus 2hrist@ is proc(aimed. so it is a(right. at (east good enough. *esides. someone ho proc(aims Jesus 2hrist can6t be approached rea((, critica((,. Proponents too. are e((9 ad0ised to not superficia((, :udge the person and his message. but to ob:ecti0e(, in0estigate the fina( resu(ts of the doctrines. It is essentia( that e keep our :udgment c(ear. In this case. c(ear means =free> of the things e ourse(0es find acceptab(e. re(ie0ed or p(easant or that fit in ith our st,(e of (i0ing. *ut a(so free from persons and. as much as possib(e. free from our backgrounds. That is <uite a :ob and can on(, be done hen our heart is focused on finding the truth. no matter the outcome. Let6s tr, be(o A It is 5ctober )&&7 hen Stichting 5p ekking BRevival Foundation)breaks off ith its ,outh group /-. hich ants too o0eremphasi?e the theo(og, of Joseph Prince. +an, groups that ha0e prob(ems ith PrinceCs theo(og, are primari(, against it. because Prince ou(d adhere to @prosperit, teachings@. *e(o e i(( see this might not be the main reason to not appro0e of this theo(og,. Some take the 0ie that this theor, i(( pass. This might be true. but in the meantime it has deep(, rooted and to man, e0ange(ica( ,outh mo0ements it is the basis of their schoo( for (ife. /ere the e0ange(ica( (eaders of tomorro are being formed. D0en on the ebsite of the D0ange(ische 5mroep Be0ange(ica( broadcasting compan,E ,ou find a (ot of discussions and co(umns. ob0ious(, inf(uenced b, these theories. 'n e0ange(ica( once mentioned he had read the doctrines of Joseph Prince. 'fter a coup(e of pages he conc(uded he cou(d not agree and he had c(osed the book. That6s a pit, . because in the e0ange(ica( or(d e sometimes see a (ot of menta( images coming from this Singapore Theo(og,. but hich of course not a( a,s e;p(icit(, bear the stamp of Joseph Prince. Fet e need to be ab(e to c(ear(, distinguish. 7e do not rea((, mean to oppose the Singapore Theo(og, right here. It is high(, important to recogni?e h, some peop(e at first are fa0ourab(e to these teachings and are insufficient(, ab(e to put into ords h, these teachings contrast sharp(, ith the pre0ai(ing e0ange(ica( bib(e teachings. 7e can on(, get to kno b, in0estigating these teachings one or t o (e0e(s deeper and (ook especia((, here their theses fina((, end in. +an, readers are ama?ed that some hat hidden messages are sent ith the Singapore Theo(og, and that it takes positions that sudden(, not e0en (ook (ike the e0ange(ica( 0ie an,more. It ou(d be great if fo((o ers of this theo(og, cou(d at (east (arge(, identif, ith

the theses of Faith as e;pressed be(o . It is not necessar, for the proponents of this theo(og, to then agree ith the opinion on these theses of faith too. '(though it sometimes is una0oidab(e to gi0e an opinion on certain standpoints " often because the, ha0e a rong base of reasoning " it further is up to the reader to determine hat he thinks of particu(ar re(igious con0ictions. It is rather the intention to gather facts and standpoints of Joseph Prince. so 2hristians can determine for themse(0es hether these standpoints fit in their o n perception of faith and if the, rea((, ha0e a bib(ica( foundation. /onest, compe(s to sa, that (ight needs to be thro n on the sub:ects be(o in order to get the standpoints of Joseph Prince c(ear. 5n(, (istening to his (ectures or g(ance through his books incur the danger that ,ou simp(, read past it or think too soon that it sounds good and reasonab(e. To the reader it is important to kno in ad0ance that the message as it is brought b, this church in Singapore. i(( not be (abe((ed as %&&G right or %&&G rong in this document. ' part is in (ine ith our Dutch e0ange(ica( opinions. *ut on some " on further consideration rather crucia( " points. the 0ie s of this Singaporean 2hurch dissent considerab(, and sometimes shocking. This document records a number of differences. but it is nothing more than a sketch and therefore not e;hausti0e. Though it is getting easier to e0entua((, " on the basis of one6s o n *ib(e stud, " :udge hether ,ou can agree ith these standpoints. *ut these issues can not on(, be put to the test based on indi0idua( te;ts and our fee(ings. It takes a deep i(( to understand as e((. 7hi(e in0estigating into the basic assumptions of faith of this Singaporean church I some hat ad:usted m, 0ie . In ad0ance I as of the opinion that the essence strong(, corresponded ith the e0ange(ica( 0ie on the *ib(e. The points of difference ou(d (ie in areas that did not touch the essence of the !ospe(. In such cases e must be 0er, carefu( not too <uick(, and sharp(, pass :udgment on de0iating ideas. because in our o n domination there is <uite some 0ariet, on themes and differences in interpretation. *esides e must e(( rea(i?e that e0en the e0ange(ica( 0ie is strong(, inf(uenced b, the 2a(0inistic " and before that the $oman 2atho(ic a, of thinking. That is h, e too are not a( a,s ab(e to " separated from these backgrounds 9 see through the proper /ebre conte;t of the *ib(e and take it ith us in our frame of reference. It is the ob:ect of this document to come apart as much as possib(e from these backgrounds and to :udge the theor, as it is brought up in the 4e 2reation 2hurch on the basis of the *ib(e itse(f. 7ith that it is not done to put a bib(e 0erse opposed a different bib(e 0erse. because this i(( (ead to dead(ocks. 7e i(( simp(, tr,. based on the teachings. to (ook hat the resu(t of this stream of thoughts i(( be. *, keeping the basic assumption in mind and seeing ho the theor, is gathered around it. 0er, essentia(

differences come to (ight. Differences that are up to the reader to :udge. If. on the ebsite. ,ou become ac<uainted ith the =Statement of Faith> of the 4e 2reation 2hurch here Joseph Prince is senior pastor. on first thoughts ,ou see nothing strange. I think e can fu((, agree ith its theses of Faith as the, are mentioned there. Point is that it does not co0er hat the, rea((, be(ie0e. 'fter stud,ing the deeper (e0e(s of their con0iction of Faith e cannot insist that the, think e<ua((, on crucia( points and e must come to the conc(usion that the, not on(, ha0e a different 0ie on side issues. In this document e use a number of ords interchangeab(e. a(( the time as s,non,ms. 7here e rite about the Singaporean 2hurch. the Singaporean Theo(og,. Just !race Theo(og,. Joseph Prince and the 4e 2reation 2hurch or 422. e mean the theo(og, brought out b, Pastor Prince and his peop(e in the 4e 2reation 2hurch and b, means of books and (ectures. This is a theo(og, that. b, the a,. is not accepted a(( o0er Singapore. So the e;pression =Singapore Theo(og,> is on(, used to make things easier.

Some Faith Theses of Joseph Prince

If ,ou go through the Faith theses of the 4e 2reation 2hurch on their ebsite. as a 2hristian ,ou i(( probab(, nod in appro0a(. It seems so e(( in (ine ith the e0ange(ica( 0ie . Statement:
We believe
and !st. in one God, who exists in three Persons the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is loving, holy

We believe
%i'e.

that the "i#le is God$s Word. %t is inspired and a&&!rate. %t is o!r per'e&t g!ide in all (atters o'

We believe that sin has separated !s all 'ro( God, and that only thro!gh )es!s *hrist &an we #e re&on&iled to
God.

We believe that )es!s *hrist is #oth God and +an.

hand o' the Father as o!r High Priest and +ediator.

He was &on&eived #y the Holy Spirit and #orn o' the virgin

+ary. He led a sinless li'e, too, all o!r sins !pon Hi(sel', died and rose again. -oday, He is seated at the right

We believe that salvation is the gi't o' God to (an. -his gi't is e''e&ted #y gra&e thro!gh 'aith in )es!s *hrist
and it prod!&es wor,s pleasing to God.

We believe that water #aptis( is a sy(#ol o' the &leansing power o' God and a testi(ony o' o!r 'aith in the
.ord )es!s *hrist.

We believe that the Holy Spirit is o!r *o('orter. He g!ides !s in all areas o' o!r lives. He also #lesses !s with
spirit!al gi'ts and e(powers !s to yield the 'r!it o' the Spirit.

We believe that the Holy *o((!nion is a &ele#ration o' )es!s$ death and o!r re(e(#ran&e o' Hi(.

We believe that God wants to trans'or(, heal and prosper !s, so that we &an live #lessed and vi&torio!s lives
that wilt i(pa&t and help others.

We believe that we are &alled to prea&h the gospel to all nations. We believe that o!r .ord )es!s *hrist is &o(ing #a&, again
!st as He pro(ised.

*ut if e get to the 0er, bottom of the contents of this theo(og,. another %& statements.

e can (ist

To pre0ent readers in the ne;t chapters i(( think that the theor, is possib(e described too 0ague(,. e i(( mention a number of statements Bnot (imitati0eE hich are discussed in the memo and form the pi((ars underneath the statements of Joseph PrinceA %. ). 3. 1. +an, 2hristians be(ie0e that it is the (a that sa0es them. The more e sin. the more grace e are granted. It is use(ess to fee( gui(t, about sin. 5ur future sins as e(( are forgi0en in ad0ance. 3. 7e ere predestined before the foundation of the 7or(d BpredestinationE. 6. ' 2hristian can ne0er (ose his sa(0ation because of this. 7. Peop(e ho backs(ide ha0en6t been 2hristians in the first p(ace. 8. I((ness is a( a,s demonic. #. Peop(e are hea(ed through the /o(, 2ommunion Bthis is a mechanismE. %&. If e ant to be hea(ed a (ot. e shou(d ce(ebrate /o(, 2ommunion as often as possib(e. %%. If e are i(( it pro0es e are sti(( (i0ing under the curse of the (a . Some statements i(( perhaps make the reader to fro n his bro s. Therefore e i(( first describe the theor, some hat broader and then ?oom in on subthemes. Point is that e first understand the theor, in its entiret,.

Differences in background
' great difference in interpretation certain(, comes from the background of the founders of this mo0ement and the region in hich this theo(og, has its foundation. In the 4ether(ands the 2a(0inistic a, of thinking B%E has strong(, inf(uenced the 0ie on the *ib(e. and e0en on socia( re(ations and patterns of thought. '(though 2a(0inism focuses attention on !od6s grace as e((
% 'nd pre0ious to that persuasions as 2atho(icism and the !reek a, of thinking

,ou must consider this from the fact that e as human beings are on(, ab(e to do (itt(e and need that grace to :ust reach the finishing (ine. !od pu((s us. as it ere. out of the e(( e continuous(, dig for ourse(0es. This is not necessari(, hat the *ib(e te((s. but it certain(, is our o n a, of seeing the *ib(e and the message of grace for ages. D0en the s(ogan =Heep ,ourse(f pure from this or(d> takes an important position. There is no space to stud, this in dept here. but a deeper ana(,sis of the effects of 2a(0inism on our a, of (ooking at the /ebre conte;t of the *ib(e sure is orth hi(e. D0en e (ook at the *ib(e ith @co(oured@ fi(ters. hich means that 9 un(ess e dig deeper 9 e ha0e a distorted 0ie of rea(it,. 7hich is not different in the Singaporean approach. The, are being (ess " probab(, not at a(( " inf(uenced b, 2a(0inism and see on(, the resu(ts in the estern church. It is ob0ious that the thoughts that come up in the Singaporean theo(og, can be easi(, re(ated to thoughts that p(a, an important ro(e in the orienta( re(igions. The <uick :udge i(( sa, that if this rea((, is the case the Singaporean theo(og, shou(d be re:ected immediate(,. *ut that is taking turns on t o hee(s. For. though e are not proponents of orienta( re(igions. it is possib(e. of course. that some e(ements are uni0ersa((, app(icab(e and cou(d ha0e positi0e impact on our thoughts Bfor e;amp(e thinking positi0e(,E. In this memo e put a fe of these orienta( thoughts to the tab(e. In the end the conc(usion of this document is that Joseph Prince on a number of crucia( points pursues a comp(ete different (ine hich does not fit in the estern e0ange(ica( a, of thinking. *esides. it is true that his a, of dra ing conc(usions is considerab(, deficient. *e(o e i(( return to that in particu(ar. +oreo0er. the (istener to his sermons and the reader of his books i(( notice that a(most e0er, statement is grounded b, an e;amp(e from practice in hich mirac(e hea(ing and mechanisms of faith p(a, their parts. '(though an e;amp(e can certain(, gi0e a statement a scientific underpinning e e0en kno from the *ib(e that an e;amp(e. e0en a mirac(e hea(ing. does not ha0e to confirm a statement. D0en the sorcerers in Dg,pt kne a number of tricks and cou(d make a snake out of a stick or the other a, around. D0en in the estern or(d e hear that peop(e ith occu(t backgrounds are ab(e to hea( peop(e up to a certain e;tent. So e kno that irrespecti0e of the source hea(ing cou(d take p(ace. a(though it is the u(timate <uestion if peop(e rea((, get @ e((@. So hea(ing does not pro0e a statement or certain theor, of faith is right. +oreo0er there is man6s ps,che. hich cou(d inf(uence certain hea(ings. 5ne of these e;amp(es is the po er of thinking positi0e(, or forgi0eness. $ememberA e do not sa, that the e;amp(es <uoted b, Pastor Prince are not right. on(, that the, cannot form proof b, themse(0es and abso(ute(, no proof that the ho(e theor, is rong. It does not mean either that e0er,thing that Joseph Prince sa,s is not in (ine.

ith the bib(e. The a(terations he makes. ho e0er. are much more than nuances and cou(d (ead to 0er, different conc(usions in important areas of faith.

Law and

race ! putting something straight

*efore stud,ing Joseph Prince6s theo(og, in depth e must go back to the essence of the !ospe( as e find it in e0ange(ica( churches. and in man, protestant churches as e((. That basis is important since preachers (ike Prince keep pretending that e a(( too often keep ho(ding to the (a and thus put grace out of action. The, state (a and grace are at odds ith each other and it is in fact sin to keep ho(ding to the La . a(though the (a itse(f is good. Precise(, at this point e can be c(earA in the fu(( gospe( it is not be(ie0ed at a((. that the La is our sa(0ation and that keeping the (a brings about our sa(0ation. 7e are 0er, e(( a are that grace de(i0ers us from the re<uirements of the (a so e do not ha0e to submit to the ,oke of the thought that it as the (a that de(i0ered us. So. if Joseph Prince states that e sti(( keep ho(ding to that (a . he is rong. The crucia( point is in another fie(dI the Singapore Theo(og, states that the (a once had the function of de(i0ering us and that grace took its p(ace. after hich the (a as rescinded because it had become superf(uous. So (a and grace had the same function and grace managed to do hat (a cou(dnCt. according to this Theo(og,. *ut that is a f(a in the reasoningI (a ne0er aimed at redeeming us and ne0er meant to redeem or :ustif, humanit,. That is h, (a cannot be rep(aced b, grace. because the, ha0e different functions. La as meant as !odCs guide(ine to (i0e in /is i(( and. besides. in the 5(d Testament it ga0e a number of practica( and h,gienic functions. though it is not (imited to that. It is a orkbook. hich as first gi0en to Israe( Bboth Je s as the house of Israe()Eas guide amongst man, peop(e ho ere (i0ing barbarica((,. If someone did not keep it there as a possibi(it, to recei0e forgi0eness Bco0eringE b, making a sin offering to come to terms ith !od. *ut e0en in those da,s !od6s grace as bad(, needed. ' beautifu( and poignant e;amp(e is the stor, of Da0id ho appropriated a so(dier6s ife and had him ki((ed b, de(iberate(, p(acing him in the front(ine. Da0id kne he as rong and !od made him e;perience the conse<uences. *ut at the end of his (ife Da0id as a man after !od6s heart and *athsheba ga0e birth to a son ho (ater as to become the isest man on earth and through hom the progen, as carried on BSa(omoE. If that
)

That the (a as once gi0en to both the Je s Bthe house of JudaE as to the house of Israe( is a stud, in itse(f and sho s that the (a as not on(, meant for the Je s. The (a kept app(,ing to the house of Israe( hich (ater during the Diaspora got comp(ete(, mi;ed up ith the peop(es. In contrast ith the house of Juda. Peop(e ho state the (a as meant for the Je s. shou(d ask themse(0es if the, do not be(ong to the house of Israe( themse(0es B hich is a difficu(t search. b, the a,E.

as not graceJ So the <uestion is ho e (ook at the 5(d Testament and hether this 0ie might ha0e been co(oured. The period of the 5(d Testament as a period in hich !od6s grace as the centra( point and the La as app(icab(e. The statement of the Singapore Theo(og, that e shou(d keep to the function of the (a to be :ustified is rea((, definite(, rong. but Joseph Prince keeps reminding us of it. The statement that grace rep(aced the (a is not on(, rong. but e0en impossib(e. because the functions are comp(ete(, different. If e keep that in mind e can c(ear(, understand here the Singapore theo(og, goes astra, and puts us rea((, on the rong track. Some peop(e onder h, there are so man, parishioners in their church that fee( set free b, this Singapore +essage of grace. It must be rea(. it cannot be but right. D;act(, that is here the shoe pinches. If peop(e fee( set free b, the Joseph Prince6s message that does not necessari(, mean the message is right. Too often ,ou see that peop(e think it is a p(easant message because e0er, eight is taken off their shou(der and sudden(, the, do not ha0e to do a(( kind of things. Too often peop(e do not take the troub(e to stud, in depth hat is rea((, to(d. 5n(, the packing seems to be enough. there is no need to open the bo;. it sounds 0er, credib(e. 5n the other hand it sho s that sti(( a (ot of peop(e in the fu(( gospe( insufficient(, understood and fathomed the part of the La and grace. I6m con0inced that e0ange(ica( 2hristians ith a good foundation do not rea((, ha0e a fee(ing of sa(0ation hen Joseph Prince speaks about grace. For e a(read, be(ie0e that our :ustification comes on(, through !od6s grace and not b, keeping the (a . *e(o e i(( see that Joseph Prince6s theo(og, . ho e0er. goes far be,ond.

"easoning from a predetermined image of

od

+ost theo(ogians think in terms of a predetermined image of !od hich is understandab(e. 5n the basis of their teachings the, de0e(op a certain image of !od. after hich e0er,thing in the *ib(e is interpreted from that image and further strengthens that image of !od. In 2a(0inism too. there is no getting round a foregone Band sometimes one9sidedE image of !odA !od is !od and (ifted high abo0e e0er,thing. /e is so0ereign and determines hat /e i(( do ith a human being. 7e ma, hope for /is grace. but that grace is more (ike a destin,. it does not sa, an,thing about the a, !od i(( inf(uence our present situation. 7e ere ne0er promised a ca(m :ourne,. but a safe arri0a(. D0ange(ica( 2hristians think some hat more positi0e about this. though this is a sort of anti9reaction against the 2a(0inistic period before.

In genera( one cou(d sa, the Singapore Theo(og, thinks in terms of an image of !od in hich Jesus 2hrist is being sketched as a deit, ho means e(( ith us and is i((ing to do e0er,thing to rea(i?e it. !od created us after /is image and e must not a(( the time start ta(king about our shortcomings. because !od put e0er,thing at our disposa(. 7e :ust ha0e to understand. !od addresses to us persona((, and through negati0e or inferior thoughts e cou(d harm this. but e cou(d a(so appropriate it b, our a, of adopting an attitude. be(ie0ing and confessing. !od does not ant us to be i((. or that e kno po0ert, or misfortune. Fou 0er, strong(, see that a certain image of !od has been created and the ho(e theo(og, is created around it. so fina((, that image is confirmed again. There is 0er, (itt(e room for nuance and m,ster,. *, m,ster, e mean that some things simp(, cannot be understood from our human mind and that e cannot a( a,s find a c(osing ans er for e0er,thing. for e;amp(e i((ness. The Singapore Theo(og, kno s 0er, (itt(e doubt. If it fina((, shou(d go rong ,ou cou(d at orst sa, that it as caused b, our faith or our doubt or our endea0our to do it b, ourse(0es. The Singapore Theo(og, sa,s 2a(0inism is particu(ar(, e;pecting it from hanging on to and accomp(ishing the (a . and the $oman 2atho(ic faith sees especia((, their @o n good deeds@ as ke,. *ut the Singapore Theo(og, sa,s e :ust ha0e to (ea0e it to Jesus and the /o(, Spirit i(( do the ork in us and /is grace is a(read, ritten in our heart. Later in this document e i(( see that pastor Prince passes the responsibi(it, unto us. in the end it is to sa, it is a(( about our faith and our a, of proc(amation.

Joseph Prince and room for nuance

In near(, e0er, message a situation is created in hich it is first put that a(( kind of 2hristians think the, sti(( fai( in keeping !od6s (a s and that the, tr, to (i0e righteous out of their o n strength. If that image is set. the Theo(og, of !race is put against it. Just (ike b(ack stands against hite. There is (itt(e room for nuances. there is no gre, and there is no <uestion mark. *ecause in preaching one is chief(, speaking himse(f. the game of <uestions and ans ers is created b, onese(f too. So for e;amp(e ,ou see a <uestion ith t o possib(e ans ers being asked to peop(e. !od (o0es ,ou if ,ou do not sinK !od (o0es ,ou hen ,ou sti(( sinK

(nother e.ample6

7e are freed from the curse of the (a . e;cept hen e sinK 7e are freed from the curse of the (a . e0en hen e sinK

The attenti0e reader i(( consider that the nuance is bet een these t o ans ers. of course. *ut the inattenti0e hearer i(( think that one of the t o ans ers is right and one has to chose. This is a techni<ue often used and certain(, coming back in preaching. If an ans er is gi0en one automatica((, finds himse(f on a certain road. 'fter another number of such mu(tip(e choice <uestion one ends up in a strange situation. 5n the one hand one must honest(, dra the conc(usion that in 0ie of these ans ers one has rea((, ended up here. but on the other hand one obser0es one cannot agree ith the fina( resu(t. Scho(ars 0er, soon put an end to this imperfect methodo(og,. The phrasing of the <uestion is comp(ete(, rong and there is no room for nuance.

#pplication of Logic
5n crucia( points Joseph Prince does not app(, the genera((, accepted (ogic. That demands an e;p(anation. Joseph Prince tends to gi0e a (ot of e;amp(es. The reader thinks these e;amp(es pro0e that the theor, is correct. hich is not a( a,s the case. of course. In fact he uses so man, e;amp(es that the, set a(most his ho(e theo(og,. Someone as hea(ed at one stage during a certain e0ent. so the same goes for e0er,one in such a situation. 7e must be 0er, carefu( ith this reasoning. For e;amp(e e a(( kno that man, a,s (ead to $ome. '(( those roads fina((, end on the great s<uare of $ome. *ut Joseph Prince reaches the conc(usion that if ,ou a(k a(( those a,s back ,ou end in the same point. 7hich is not true. of course. Let6s tr, to find an e;amp(e. Joseph Prince states Jesus ent around @hea(ing e0er,one ho as demon9 possessed@3. Subse<uent(,. he (itera((, statesA
e careful, that illness !as caused "y satanic #ossession$ %o, illness is caused "y satanic #ossession&'$

It does not ca(( for much further comment to conc(ude that common (ogic is strong(, 0io(ated here and peop(e are being mis(ed. Jesus hea(ed demon9 possessed peop(e. but not e0er,one ho is i(( is demon9possessed as e((. *esides. not e0er,one as hea(ed. That is e;p(icit(, mentioned
3 1

'cts %&A 38 *ook(et Health and Wholeness through the Holy (ommunion b, Joseph Prince. pp )7

%)

in 'cts. but Joseph Prince uses this one e;amp(e " and improper techni<ue " to con0ince peop(e.

ith that 0er, easi(, an

$eing %isled b& the Phrasing of the 'uestion

Joseph Prince states that peop(e i(( be hea(ed through the practice of the /o(, 2ommunion. To support his theor, that peop(e are hea(ed through the /o(, 2ommunion and that /is bod,. broken for us grants us hea(ing. Prince states that Jesus anted to share /is bod, because it ou(d gi0e (ife. hea(th and ho(eness. Prince statesA
The disci#les never sa! )esus "eing ill$ *ot once they sa! Him having a cold, flu or
stomach ache+$ The Lord never !as ill$ What is more, He !as full of life and health and His "ody !as so filled !ith life that even His clothes !ere saturated !ith health$&

The *ib(e does not at a(( reach these conc(usions. but if ,ou ant to further bui(d up the theor, ,ou ha0e to reach these conc(usions. because other ise the foundation of this theor, is (ost. The *ib(e te((s us Jesus as ac<uainted

ith i((ness and /e e0en

as someone not

orth the sightB6E

.............................................................................................................. 'nd the *ib(e te((s us too that Jesus as tempted in the same a, as e B7E. '(though these te;t does not ,et form so(id e0idence that Jesus had to do ith i((ness. it goes more ithout sa,ing than the statement that Jesus ne0er e;perienced stomach ache. For /e came as a human being not as !od. 7hat it is a(( about. ho e0er. is the fact that constant(, a statement is ad0anced hich is insufficient(, grounded and hich simp(, ignores certain te;ts in the *ib(e comp(ete(,.

Law
2a(0inism focuses <uite some attention on the (a . something from hich e sti(( suffer. I am con0inced that our a, of reading the *ib(e Band certain(, the a, of our parentsE as strong(, inf(uenced b, this 2a(0inistic a, of thinking. *ut against this Joseph Prince hand(es the same methodo(og,. It states that sti(( man, 2hristians see the (a as a means to be :ustified. Then the <uestion is being asked hether !od i(( :udge us based on the e;tent e kept the (a . Then another t o choices <uestion emerges. These are <uestions for hich ,ou can on(, chose bet een t o ans ers. or the <uestion must be ans ered ith =,es> or =no>. The ans er from the group is negati0e and ith that ans er Joseph Prince continues his stor,I

Health and Wholeness Through the Holy Communion pp28

7
)

'saiah 5363
+ebr& 8615

so the function of the (a as done8 and the <uestion is hether something that is done sti(( has to be continued. The hearer again ma,

chose bet een =,es> or =no>. *ut the ans er =,es> no (onger speaks for itse(f for than the first ans er is no (onger correct. So there is no other choice but ans ering to the second <uestionA 4o. there is no need to fo((o the (a an,more. *ut e;act(, here the prob(em is to be foundI the first <uestion as improper(, phrased and hat6s more ithout possibi(it, for nuance. The fact is that it suggests that the (a as once instituted for on(, one purpose. name(, to gi0e peop(e the opportunit, to :ustif, themse(0es for !od. *ut Joseph Prince does not further e;amine the rea( function !od had in mind for the Torah. From the beginning the (a as not a too( for peop(e to :ustif, themse(0es and the *ib(e ne0er to(d us so. For in the same (a it speaks of a sin offering. so !od kne much ear(ier that man cou(d not :ustif, himse(f b, keeping the (a . it as aiming too high. !od had a(read, considered the possibi(it, of the sin offering in /is comp(ete p(an. Sti(( Prince keeps on ho(ding to his princip(e to represent things 0er, simp(istica((,. The (a does not ser0e its purpose an,more. so the (a is no (onger necessar,. so it is a(most re0o(ting against !od if ,ou tr, to keep it. In the 4ether(ands e came across a stud, for the ,oung that e0en stated that reading out (oud the ten commandments in a meeting as in fact sin and b(asphem, in depth.

Bringing Sin to Light, Have Sin increased

Fet Joseph Prince sa,s that the (a had one other functionA bringing sin to (ight. In that case one cannot sa, that Jesus 2hrist6s death made that function redundant. *ut Joseph Prince sa,s as e(( that this function is no (onger necessar, and in that he is in an, case 0er, conse<uent. but it gi0es us a (ot of c(arit, at the same time. /e states that sin does not ha0e to be brought to (ight an,more. The (a is no (onger 0a(id. so sin does not come to (ight and e do not commit sin an,more#. because the stamp =sin> does no (onger e;ist. 't an, rate. it might be possib(e that e sti(( do bad things. but e shou(d not ca(( these sin. because then e ou(d fa(( back on the (a . 's far as e sti(( do things that !od does not appreciate the /o(, Spirit i(( con0ince us. Sin is =missing ,our

mark> and 2hristians cannot miss there mark. so the, do not commit sin an,more. but ordinar, bad things.
8

It is interesting that the hearer can on(, ans er that !od does not :udge us based on hich e kept the (a . 7ith that ans er Prince reaches a conc(usion he is not a((o ed ho has not e;amined this theor,. i(( here perhaps

the e;tent in
#

to dra based on that ans erA so the (a is done. The proponent of Joseph Prince thinkA I bet Joseph did not mean it that a,. +ind m, ordsA *ecause this reasoning i(( come up in detai( (ater and Joseph Prince actua((, app(ies this thought .

'ccording to pastor Prince it is e0en the ob:ect of the (a to (et sin increase. '(though e cannot den, that peop(e ha0e a natura( tendenc, to do hat is not a((o ed. there is no foundation at a(( to state that T/D 5*JD2T of the (a Band thus of !odE as to (et sin increase. as if !od anted a (ot of sin offerings. If ,ou ou(d suppose it. ,ou i(( end up in one of those unso(0ab(e circ(es. Do e ha0e a picture that !od in the 5(d Testament as a different !odK 7h, ou(d !od ha0e thought that /e needed a (a to (et sin increaseK 's if /e needed that. 7h, does the Singapore Theo(og, preach a 0er, (o0ing !od ho addresses himse(f to us as %&&G Father. hi(e that !od is unchanged too and ear(ier anted to (et us stumb(e or through strict ru(es dri0e us in the cornerK If ,ou simp(, read attenti0e(, ,ou reach the conc(usion that Pau( on(, rites that it is a side effect of the (a that sin is brought to (ight.

Law Stimulates (arnal Desire

In order to enforce the statement =that the (a stimu(ates carna( desire> e are dished up an e;amp(eA a faithfu( minister speaks fanatica((, about adu(ter,. In that a, he ants to ho(d out an image of ho(iness and obedience to !ods (a s. hi(e his o n heart is ,earning for another oman than his o n ife. The more he p(aces himse(f under the (a Bed. cru; %E. in this case =Thou sha((t not commit adu(ter,> and the more he speaks about this Bed. cru; )E. the more his o n desires are stimu(ated. Fou cou(d consider the f(esh as gunpo der and the (a as fire. according to this stud,. B%&E This Singapore Theo(og, states hat there is a connection bet een the (a and the stimu(ation of carna( desires. In other p(aces one takes the 0ie that !od in fact rote the (a in our heart and that the /o(, Spirit rea(i?es it in us so e ant to g(ad(, keep it. *ut ob0ious(, that does not ork in this e;amp(e. If e test this e;amp(e it shou(d ork in other areas. Let us tr,I do not sa, to other that the, are not a((o ed to (ie or stea( according to !od6s (a . for then ,ou sudden(, start (,ing and stea(ing ,ourse(f. 'n, a, there shou(d be no difference in mechanisms bet een the Torah and the profane (egis(ation. *oth ou(d (ead to more offences. or rather incite orse beha0iour. In fact it shou(d be preferab(e to repea( a(( (egis(ation because it goads into undesirab(e beha0iour. '(though this reasoning is not correct according to (ogic.

10

Page 3 o! the st#d* 9:a$ "ers#s ,race; on $$$&gracebase&nl $hich is a translation o! a st#d* as gi"en b*

the <e$ 0reation 0h#rch in Singapore&

it seems ob0ious to e0er,one that ,ou do not ha0e to be a scho(ar to refute this. 4e;t is another reasoning hich cannot bear the (a s of (ogicI (a brings sin to (ight. The (a is no (onger 0a(id so e do not commit sin an,more. 't an, rate. it might be possib(e that e sti(( do bad things. but e shou(d not ca(( this sin. because then e ou(d fa(( back on the (a . because the (a names sin and the (a is no (onger 0a(id. 5ne i(( see that fo((o ers of Joseph Prince do not (ike to ta(k about sin an,more. Sin has a re(ation ith the (a and ta(king about sin is in proportion ith ta(king about the (a . In a (ater section e i(( ascertain that Joseph Prince rea((, thinks that e do not commit sin an,moreI since Jesus died for us nothing can come bet een us and !od. 7e are :ustified fore0er. no matter hat kind of good and bad things e are going to do in the future and no matter the degree of it. In fact !od has predestined a certain group of peop(e before the foundation of the 7or(d to be identica( ith the image of /is Son. Those peop(e /e :ustified through Jesus 2hrist. In the (ater sections it i(( become much c(earer to the reader h, sin cannot ha0e a p(ace an,more in Joseph Prince6s Theo(og,.

Status of Sin
'(though Joseph Prince ants to restrict the use of the ord @sin@ as much as possib(e. it is of great importance to e;amine ho the, think of sin ithin this theo(og,. This takes us to a remarkab(e conc(usion. D0en the Singapore Theo(og, sa,s e can sti(( do things that !od actua((, not ants. *ut in fact these are no (onger sins in the sense as e are used to ca(( them. For this ou(d mean that it cou(d come bet een !od and us. The, bring for ard the fo((o ing te;tA
Romans +,-. ut the la! entered so that the offense might a"ound$ ut !here sin a"ounded, grace did much more a"ound$/

Then the e;p(anation fo((o sA This means that the more e sin. the more !od i(( grant us /is grace. 7e do not forfeit !od6s grace. That on(, happens

hen e find ourse(0es in the s,stem of the (a and tr, to obtain !od6s fa0our instead of being comp(ete(, dependent on !od6s grace%%.
Page 11 of the study Law versus Grace of www.gracebase.nl which is a literal translation of a study by the New Creation Church in Singapore oseph Prince
11

Let6s once more take a c(ose (ook at Joseph PrinceCs statementA =If e sin !od6s grace comes into action. The more e sin. the more !od grants us /is grace. If ,ou read this carefu((,. ,ou must reach the conc(usion that it is indeed true that !odCs grace comes into action as e sin. In genera( there i(( be no e0ange(ica( ob:ection about that. *ut from $omans 3A)& he takes the statement that hen e persona((, commit more sin. the grace of !od increases too. This is not hat $omans rites. In his epist(e to the $omans Pau( describes a genera( situation in hich sin does become more 0isib(e through the (a . but hat e0entua((, caused the offer of 2hrist to bring more grace. D(se here in the *ib(e is ritten that he ho commits great sins. i(( recei0e grace more abundant(,. That is (ogica(. because the distance bet een o(d and ne is 0er, big for these peop(e. in the perception of the man ho repents as e((. *ut it does not acti0ate a mechanism through hich peop(e recei0e more grace hen the, sin more and more after their con0ersion. The Farmer (ooks for the appearance of fruit and /e is 0er, patient. but it does not mean that grace increases e0er, time sin increases. That mechanism is not correct. 7e did not ask Joseph Prince. but the parab(e of the farmer ho has the tree cut do n because it does not bear fruit certain(, does not fit in Joseph Prince6s theor,. 7ithin his theor, ,ou ne0er ou(d ha0e been a tree Bnot shaped after /is image from the foundation of the or(dE or ,ou ne0er ou(d ha0e been cut do n Bfrom the foundation of the or(d shaped after /is imageE. 'nother e;amp(e pro0es hat the @%&&G !race Theo(og,@ has a different 0ie on sin.
When he sins, he 0no!s he is silly !hen he tries to fulfil the la! once again "y trying to regain 1od through his deeds$ He 0no!s it is useless to condemn himself, or feel guilty a"out his sins$& %)

5nce again the riter directs us in a certain direction. I do not be(ie0e at a(( that e0ange(ica( 2hristians think that " if the, ha0e committed sin " the, tr, to regain !od through their actions. +an, 2hristians are a are the, did not p(ease !od and ask for forgi0eness. Peop(e are a are the, need !od6s grace. It is not impossib(e that ,ou sti(( tr, to (i0e in (ine ith !od6s guide(ines. *ut the riter states as e(( that it is use(ess to fee( gui(t, o0er ,our sins. This is striking for e0en if a (a as out of the <uestion ,ou cou(d sti(( fee( gui(t, if ,ou had (ied or sto(en because ,ou kno !od does not (ike this. If !od has ritten this (a in our heart a certain form of gui(t ou(d suit it. !od demands that e i(( p(ease /im. Fee(ing gui(t, is a hea(th, mechanism :ust (ike fee(ing pain hen ,ou step on a nai(. /opefu((, it has a (earning function.
%)

Page # of the stud, as described in the former footnote.

*ut e;act(, here it gradua((, becomes c(ear that Prince and his peop(e ha0e a different 0ie of sin. It is be(ie0ed that 2hristians are sa0ed fore0er and cannot (ose their sa(0ation. +ore than that. if ,ou are chosen from the foundation of the 7or(d. ,ou are shaped after the image of !od6s Son and sin cannot hurt ,ou e0er again. In the ne;t sections e i(( de(0e deeper into this. Sin is a 0er, interesting sub:ect in the preaching of the 4e 2reation 2hurch in Singapore. It is a sub:ect that is hard to p(ace and if ,ou read carefu((, the, do not kno ho to cope ith it. The, constant(, emphasi?e the :ustification through the Lord Jesus. *, that the, seem to be on the good side. for if ,ou focus attention on Jesus 2hrist ,ou are right. *ut the, ha0e a specia( a, to do so. First of a((. Prince (itera((, sa,sA
You are a sinner2 "ut not "ecause you sin, "ut "ecause Adam sinned$&

'gain it seems part(, true. The *ib(e c(ear(, sa,s that sin came into the or(d through a man Bthe first manE. In other ordsA before 'dam no one sinned. so he as the first to open the door and a((o sin to enter Bin fact it as D0eE. $emark from the orkgroupA '(though e can a(most comp(ete(, agree ith the anon,mous author. e think that in the point mentioned be(o . hen it comes to origina( sin. his e;p(anation is too simp(e. In the e0ange(ica( and re(igious or(d there are too man, different 0ie s on the theo(ogica( concept of origina( sin to put it this =simp(e>. That is h, the orkgroup ga0e this short comment. /o e0er. something interesting is going on. D;p(icit(, no emphasis is (aid on our o n sins. but on 'dam6s sins. 5f course it is true that 'dam as the first to sin and thus @introduced@ sin. This means that e a(( are born in a sinfu( or(d. *ut it is not correct that e are sinfu( because B%E 'dam sinned and for no other reason. If 'dam had not sinned somebod, e(se ou(d. but in the end e ha0e a(( sinned ourse(0es too. $ight here Prince does not p(ace an, emphasis because it does not fit in the o0era(( picture and e;act(, that is hat it is a(( about here. 'dam sinned so the or(d and e0er,one after him ere sinfu(. 7hen Jesus 2hrist died e ere a(( :ustified Bat (east those ho ere predestinedE and so e shou(d ackno (edge that e ourse(0es never ere in a sinfu( state. 7ith that e sometimes do things that !od does not (ike. but since e are a(read, =once and for a((> :ustified. this does not correspond an,more ith the definition of sinners. 'ctua((,. for the chosen ones sin stopped in retroaction hen Jesus rose from the dead. If ,ou consider it from this theor, it is safe to sa, that Prince is ab(e to make the circ(e round. *ut then ,ou must agree ith the fact that 2hristians before the foundation of the or(d ere a(read, persona((, destined to be shaped after the image of /is Son Bas opposed to not9 chosen onesEand it cannot be but e a(( ere actua((, a( a,s :ustified. Since e (i0e in that state Band cannot change an,thing about itE e can a(so state that

2hristians ne0er backs(ide or sin. In that protected position !od actua((, does not see our sins an,more. because chosen ones do not end up in sin an,more since the resurrection of Jesus. 'nd if e do something rong e immediate(, recei0e /is grace. It is up to the reader to decide hat he thinks of this. The Dng(ish te;t i(( appea( e0en more to some

Man is a sinner "ecause of !hat Adam had done, not "ecause he sins 3 he sins "ecause he has inherited Adam4s sinful nature$ Li0e!ise, a (hristian is righteous "ecause of !hat )esus (hrist had done on the cross, not "ecause he does good 55 he does good "ecause (hrist is in him$ When !e !ere sinners, our good deeds could not undo !hat Adam had done and ma0e us righteous$ %imilarly, no! that !e are righteous, our "ad deeds or sins cannot undo !hat (hrist had done and ma0e us unrighteous2&

If ,ou do not sharp(, ana(,se hat is said. as reader ,ou are inc(ined to think the abo0e is a nice para((e(. If ,ou sti(( doubt ho e interpret this here. ait ith ,ou :udgment unti( ,ou ha0e read a((. For e i(( not skate on thin ice. before e rea((, state an,thing.

#sking for Forgiveness

If sin actua((, does not e;ist for a 2hristian an, (onger. because the (a does not app(, an, (onger. than it is <uite use(ess to ask for forgi0eness for bad things. That is right according to the Singapore Theo(og,. Prince statesA /67actly through grace you are dead for sin and you can sto# sinning$/ If ,ou go and ask for forgi0eness. ,ou actua((, immediate(, den, grace. Fou see it is (ike thisI instead of recei0ing undeser0ed fa0our. e earn our forgi0eness b, asking for it. /ere again Prince dra s a 0er, specia( conc(usionA he states that if e ask for forgi0eness. e ant to earn it ourse(0es. 5f course this is a 0er, strange conc(usion. as if !od in the *ib(e did not sa, /imse(f that /e ants to forgi0e us if e confess our sin. 'nd no Prince sa,s e earn it ourse(0es b, asking for it. *ut this statement b, Prince does not stand a(one. it marks a a, of thinking that is a, be,ond. =the doctrine of predestination>. The essence being Prince stating that e ha0e actua((, a(read, reached a situation of predestination and that nothing can a(ter that. D0er, time e think e ha0e done something rong and orr, or fee( gui(t, about it. e act (ike 2hristCs offering as in 0ain. !od has forgi0en us once and for a((. That is not consistent at a(( ith the fact that Jesus /imse(f teaches us to pra, that !od i(( forgi0e our sins. :ust (ike e i((

forgi0e those ho ha0e sinned against us. So there is a connection bet een these t o issues. If !od had forgi0en us once and for a(( and from the 0er, start. h, shou(dn6t e ha0e forgi0en those ho ha0e sinned against us right from the start. That <uestion remains unans ered.

A Christian Can Never Lose His Salvation

'n aspect that keeps on coming up " and fits in the =once sa0ed. fore0er sa0ed> " theo(og, is that forgi0eness is not necessar, time and again. The te;t <uoted here ith is that 2hrist has died once and for a((. B/ebr.%&A%)9%3E 5n(, Prince trans(ates it comp(ete(, different. though ith the same ords. /e states hat our sins are forgi0en once and for a((. So e0er,one ho accepts 2hrist Band !od ne beforehand hich peop(e this ou(d beE has been forgi0en from a(( his historica( but especia((, coming sins as e((. For according to Prince 2hrist died once and for a(( for our sins. *ut an attenti0e reader i(( see that this is not ritten at a((. It sa,s that 2hrist on(, had to die once for the sins of humanit, and not time and again. 7e can sti(( appea( to the offering of )&&& ,ears ago and it is sti(( po erfu(. D0en if e ha0e committed sin and seek forgi0eness e can sti(( appea( to this and that grace does not (ose strength at a((. *ut Prince goes a bit further b, pretending that the *ib(e at that spot sa,s that our coming sins as e(( are beforehand forgi0en once and for a(( and e shou(d not keep on reminding !od. 'sking forgi0eness ou(d be rong in itse(f and sho s that e do not understand at a((. according to Prince. /e states that if e keep on asking for forgi0eness e actua((, sa, to JesusA Fou did not forgi0e m, BcomingE sins once and for a(( so e0er, time I do something rong I keep on asking for it. Thus e ignore the offering on the cross. The *ib(e teaches something different than Prince. because the *ib(e sa,s that if e continue to sin e ignore the offering hich is opposite to the thought of Prince. /ere too is <uestion of a minor change in e;p(anation that has ma:or conse<uences. but fits to get the circ(e round ithin this theor,. The =once and for a((> refers to the death of Jesus 2hrist. so /e did not ha0e to die again e0er, fe hundred ,ears as the heap of rubbish of humanit, had to ered again. The =once and for a((> does not beforehand refer to persona( coming sins hich actua((, ere forgi0en )&&& ,ears ago. regard(ess of the a, e turn in and regard(ess hether e are sorr, or not. There is forgi0eness hi(e a areness of sin is no (onger necessar,. ' areness of sin seems a sin in itse(f according to Prince6s 0ie . If e do not app(, a deeper ana(,sis here it i(( easi(, happen that e take o0er Prince6s reasoning and end up in a 0er, different

p(ace than here the *ib(e ants us. '(though the *ib(e te((s us e shou(d test this a(( the time. there are sti(( a (ot of peop(e ho take for granted hat the, are being to(d. Testing is abso(ute(, necessar, and it is hat the *ib(e teaches. In its stud, =a 2hristian cannot (ose his sa(0ation> the 4e gi0es an e;amp(e hich i(( not stand up. 2reation 2hurch

/A cater#illar turns into a "utterfly and the "utterfly is #redestined to fly to flo!ers$ ut even if it ends u# in a #ile of trash it does not change "ac0 to a cater#illar$ Finally it !ill go to the flo!ers, "ecause that is its nature$ That too is the case !ith (hristians8 even if they do !rong things, they cannot continue sinning, "ecause it sim#ly is not their nature$/

It pro0es not to be 0er, hard to demonstrate that the ana(og, ith the caterpi((ar and the butterf(, does not ho(d good ith 2hristians. For readers ho doubt hether the 4e 2reation 2hurch rea((, be(ie0es in predestination. e <uote a piece of (itera((, te;t from the stud, =a 2hristian cannot (ose this sa(0ation@%3. In this stud, reference is made to Dphesians %A 196 and $omans 8A )#
/9redestination sim#ly says that 1od, in His fore0no!ledge, 0ne! !ho !ould acce#t His %on and !ho !ould not$ He then #redestinated those !ho !ould "elieve in )esus (hrist to "e saved and glorified$ 9redestination is "eautiful "ecause it says that it !as 1od4s !il, love and #leasure to save us$ He did not do it reluctantly$ *either !as 1od4s salvation #lan a /last5minute/ thing or afterthought$ *o, 1od #redestinated us to "e saved even "efore the creation of the !orld2 The very idea of #redestination im#lies that 1od 0no!s all things "eforehand$ He is, after all, omniscient and not "ound "y time$ %o, !hy !ould 1od #redestinate someone /to "e conformed to the image of his %on/ !hen He 0no!s "eforehand that this #erson !ould eventually renounce (hrist and /lose his salvation/ :assuming that that is #ossi"le); The very #ur#ose of #redestination and 1od4s #erfect fore0no!ledge contradict this$<

Shou(d there be readers ho manage to find an e;amp(e of a 2hristian ho as rea((, on the right path and ne0erthe(ess has comp(ete(, turned a a, from that path. that is impossib(e according to the 0ie of the 4e 2reation 2hurch. That means. it is possib(e that someone has gone astra,. but in that case he actua((, has ne0er been on the right path. +ore than that. he has ne0er been a 2hristian and he as ne0er predestined too. *ecause if he had been predestined. this cou(d ne0er ha0e happened. '(though the *ib(e a fe times refers to be(ie0ers ho ent astra, and for hom is becomes impossib(e to turn back. the 4e 2reation 2hurch rote a stud, =once sa0ed. a( a,s sa0ed> for this purpose. in short
%3

From the stud, =a 2hristian cannot (ose his sa(0ation> .gracebase.n(

hich can be

do n(oaded on

it comes do n to the fact that this kind of te;t either refer to Je s or refer to peop(e ho ha0e ne0er been predestined 2hristians. The 4e 2reation 2hurch emphasi?es that !od sent /is Son to die for the sins of 'LL peop(e. It remains unc(ear hether there is <uestion of a kind of a(( reconci(iation teachings. In fact this ou(d not be possib(e because the (ast teaching assumes that unbe(ie0ers i(( e0entua((, bo their knees and i(( be reconci(ed ith !od regard(ess the sins the, ha0e committed and the 5ffering the, did not ackno (edge. That does not ta((, ith the doctrine of predestination that assumes that e as 2hristians are predestined. There is not enough (iterature of the 4e 2reation 2hurch a0ai(ab(e on this sub:ect. For the time being it is impossib(e to determine hether this Theo(og, p(aces itse(f behind the a(( reconci(iation teachings. in an, case it p(aces itse(f behind the doctrine of predestination. It is unc(ear hat the p(ace of e0ange(ism cou(d be if ,ou be(ie0e that 2hristians are predestined and non92hristians are not. Joseph Prince does not sa, an,thing about this. at (east not in the (ectures and studies of hich I dispose of.

)ur (onscience
/a0en6t e a( a,s (earned that the /o(, Spirit can con0ince us of sins but a(so sharpens our conscience. This can easi(, be tested in practice. Peop(e ho (i0e c(ose to !od genera((, ha0e a rather conser0ati0e conscience. The, rather sta, c(ose to the core than to a(k on the edge. 's soon as e a((o a certain sin in our (ife our conscience i(( speak to us. *ut there is another 0oice as e(( that sa,s it is not too bad at a((. 7e chose to hich 0oice e i(( (isten. If e go on e i(( not fee( comfortab(e. but gradua((, e put for ard arguments for ourse(0es in order to :ustif, hat e do rong. If e consistent(, maintain these sins there comes a time hen e do not hear the 0oice of our conscience an,more. 5ur conscience does not press charges against us an,more. The Singapore Theo(og, states that the /o(, Spirit rites the (a in ,our heart but does not tack(e ,ou about ,our sins. This is an a(most ine;p(icab(e combination. So there is no ro(e (eft for ,our conscience. The /o(, Spirit causes ,ou to (i0e a pure (ife a(( the time. but it (ea0es ,ou ,ourse(f tota((, out.

The Lord*s Pra&er

If sins does not p(a, a ro(e an,more. ho shou(d e henceforth pra, The Lord6s Pra,erK This as a pra,er that Jesus taught us /imse(f. didn6t /eK

For the 422 this is not an eas, part in the *ib(e. since Jesus teaches us to pra,A Forgi0e us our trespasses..................... The reaction to that part is <uite (ogica(. The 422 states that The Lord6s Pra,er is not a pra,er but ,ou shou(d pra, it other iseA
=f course You !ill not lead us in tem#tation, of course You give us our daily "read, of course You have forgiven our tres#asses$

For this interpretation there is no foundation at a(( in the *ib(e.

+ealing Through +ol& (ommunion

The 4e 2reation 2hurch has 0er, unusua( ideas about the /o(, 2ommunion. Joseph Prince brought out a book(et ca((edA =Health and Wholeness through the Holy (ommunion$& To pre0ent misunderstandings e <uote a part of the Dng(ish te;t from Prince6s book be(o . in hich he puts the /o(, 2ommunion in a certain (ight.
/As long as !e are here on earth, our "odies are su">ect to the ageing #rocess, !hich is #art of the divine sentence$ All our "odies are decaying every day$ =ur "rain cells are dying daily$ The Holy (ommunion is 1od4s solution for us to sto# the decay$ And even your friends !ill see the results$ They !ilt "egin to as0 you, /Hey, !hy do you seem to loo0 younger and younger; You never seem to age2/ =ne day, !hen !e get to heaven, !e !ilt have "rand ne! "odies that never gro! old, never tire and never loo0 "ad$ Mean!hile, the Lord4s %u##er is ho! 1od hel#s us offset this #rocess of ageing and !al0 in divine health$ 6very time you #arta0e, you are reversing the effects of the curse or divine >udgment in your "ody$$$&

Prince states that the /o(, 2ommunion is meant to bring di0ine hea(ing to our bod, and e0en pre0ent the process of ageing of the bod,. Dach time ,ou take /o(, 2ommunion ,ou re0erse the process of ageing in ,our bod,. Perhaps e cou(d <uick(, undergo this test and test it ith Joseph Prince too. Prince states that there is actua((, on(, one reason h, man, peop(e are eak and man, pass a a, B% 2o %%A 3& ffE and this is because 2hristians do not ackno (edge the @bod, and b(ood of 2hrist@. If e ou(d ackno (edge the bod, of 2hrist hi(e taking /o(, 2ommunion e ou(d not be eak and sick(, and not e;perience untime(, death. Prince dec(ares that ackno (edging the bod, means that e must ackno (edge the hea(ing po er of the bod, of 2hrist. If e do so e i(( be hea(ed ourse(0es b, taking /o(, 2ommunion. The point is that e ackno (edge and confess the hea(ing po er of the bread Bread bod,E of the /o(, 2ommunion. D;cept for the fact that Prince does not found this thesis at a((. the *ib(e c(ear(, sa,s that the /o(, 2ommunion as instituted to /is memor, and the proc(amation of /is death unti( /e comes. That there is hea(ing in the 4ame

of the Lord Jesus and that e ha0e to ackno (edge /is bod, is direct(, interre(ated ith the /o(, 2ommunion b, Joseph Prince. /ere he e0en connects things direct(, together. Prince statesA 6very time you #arta0e, you are reversing the effects of the curse or divine >udgment in your "ody$$$&$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$As you #arta0e, you !ill get "etter over time$ The more you #arta0e, the "etter you get$/ Prince states too that Jesus sa,s e =often> shou(d ce(ebrate /o(, 2ommunionI

do as )esus said 5 have it often$ / $$$Ho! often; $$$ ?t de#ends on ho! much you !ant His health and !holeness$ &

5n(, this is not comp(ete(, hat /e sa,sA = hene0er@ ,ou do this. hich has a comp(ete(, different meaning. '(though Prince probab(, thinks that if something is good for man it is best to do it more often. the *ib(e does not gi0e an, suggestion of =ho often> it shou(d be done and it does not gi0e an, connection bet een the number of times e take /o(, 2ommunion and the e;tent in hich e i(( fee( better. So as often as ,ou do something means @ hene0er ,ou do something@. The *ib(e sa,sA =Is an, sick among ,ouK Let him ca(( for the e(ders of the church> BJam. 3A %1E. It sa,s no here that he shou(d take /o(, 2ommunion. If that had been better. the *ib(e ou(d ha0e said so. Does that mean it is not good to take /o(, 2ommunion hen ,ou are i((K 4o. certain(, not. but ith Prince it seems ,ou must be akefu( a(( the time for that circ(e reasoning. That /o(, 2ommunion is good and ,ou ant to be hea(ed does not mean that ,ou i(( be hea(ed hen ,ou take /o(, 2ommunion. In Luke )) and % 2o. %% it sa,s nothing but /o(, 2ommunion @remember /im>J as meant to

In 'cts )A1) it sa,s the ne be(ie0ers =persisted in the teachings of the apost(es and communit,. breaking bread and pra,ing>. Prince states that the be(ie0ers thought those things ere important hich !od thought ere importantA
/They made a "ig deal out of !hat 1od made a "ig deal "

If !od thought breaking bread as important Ba big dea(E the be(ie0ers too thought that as important Bhere again comes the circ(e reasoningE and Prince states that /o(, 2ommunion as a channe( of !odCs hea(ing and ho(eness. Prince app(ies 0er, strange circ(es in his reasoning. /e might as e(( sa, that e shou(d a(( go to !ethsemane to be ith !od. because Jesus ent to !ethsemane to be ith /is Father.
/Holy (ommunion as a 0ey channel of health of !holeness for His #eo#le/

In his book =/ea(th and 7ho(eness through the /o(, 2ommunion> Prince gi0es another nice e;amp(eA /e kno s peop(e ho are so radica( that the, take /o(, 2ommunion as a medicine. three times a da,. 'nd the, see radica( resu(ts through this. It is not our intention to make in an, a, fun of the statements. that is e;act(, h, e constant(, refer to the book(ets ritten b, Joseph Prince himse(f. so the reader can go back and (ook for it in its conte;t. 7e do not intent to take issues out of their conte;t and e in0ite e0er,one to read the te;ts in the books of Prince for themse(0es. It certain(, sa,s in the *ib(e that the be(ie0ers occupied themse(0es ith breaking the bread because that is hat e ha0e :ust read in 'cts ). *ut the, thought it as important because it as Jesus6 command to keep on doing this to remember /im unti( /e ou(d return. The, thought this as going to happen rea( soon. *ut it actua((, sa,s no here in the *ib(e that the be(ie0ers thought there as hea(ing po er in taking /o(, 2ommunion. Probab(,

Prince imp(icit(, refers to the fact that the *ib(e sa,s that e are hea(ed b, /is stripes%3 and that the bread must be compared ith /is bod,. The connection does e;ist but in that case there is no re(ation ith /o(,
2ommunion itse(f. The canoni?ation of /o(, 2ommunion is rather done b,. among others. the $oman 2atho(ic 2hurch. but has no bib(ica( foundation neither.

The Word Faith Theolog&

Prince states in his book(et The La! @oes, Faith %#ea0s that e are nor sa0ed b, the La nor b, good deeds. 7ith both statements e can agree. /e does not state that e are sa0ed b, =obedience to the faith>. /e e;p(ains this b, stating that one is not sa0ed b, hat one does or does not do. but b, hat one be(ie0es and dec(ares. This =dec(aring> has an important function. In itse(f <uite a(right. as the reader might sa,. because confessing ,our Faith puts something into action in the spiritua( rea(m. *ut here this dec(aring has a strong simi(arit, ith the =7ord Faith Theo(og,> hich had great success in 'sia but a(so in the LS'. 'bout )& ,ears ago there as a pastor in South Horea. Fonggi 2ho. ho pub(ished a book(et hich caused a great dea( of contro0ers,A The 9o!er of 9ositive Thin0ing$ If ,ou read this book(et ,ou cannot a0oid a 0er, positi0e fee(ing. It is about be(ie0ing in something and starting to dec(are that it i(( happen. This pastor of course
%1 %3

Page 13 of the book(et mentioned abo0e. Is 33A3 and %Pe )A)1

associates that ith spiritua( issues and e0en his ho(e church as bui(t b, the po er of positi0e thinking. !enerating positi0e thoughts to put things into action has a strong connection ith *uddhism. and this kind of theo(ogies do not coincidenta((, find breeding ground in this kind of regions because the, are fami(iar ith it from chi(dhood. 4ote. again this does not sa, that the *ib(e does not teach us to think positi0e(,. *ut e see that this pastor made this to methodo(og, hich. b, the a,. (aid a burden :ust (ike that on man as keeping the (a . *ecause there here the attempts to reach hea(th and prosperit, fai(. peop(e are stirred once again to confess positi0e(, and rea((, be(ie0e in it this time. In the end it seems positi0e but the burden is at (east as hea0,. It on(, sounds friend(ier than keeping a (a . because e do not (ike that b, nature and e ne0er rea((, seem to succeed. Fonggi 2ho (ead a church of o0er 83&.&&& peop(e in Seou( and introduced @the fourth dimension@ and en0isioning. D0er, human being is (itera((, ab(e to (et something incubate in the ph,sica( rea(m and (et it happen b, creating a 0i0id image of it in his spirit and concentrate on this. $ead !od6s ord. than think positi0e(,. speak positi0e(,. en0ision positi0e(, and then it i(( happen. +an (i0es in the ph,sica( rea(m Bthe third dimensionE. but 2ho mentioned that !od had persona((, sho ed him that a(( humans are spiritua( as e(( as carna( beings. So the, ha0e the fourth dimension in their hearts and through the ski(( to concentrate on images in their imagination the, can inf(uence the third dimension. 2ho (inks to hat the /o(, Spirit did hen he mo0ed upon the aters. ,od told 0ho that 2#ddhists as $ell in!l#ence the third

dimension in the !o#rth dimension, b#t that in !act all h#man beings are able to and $e sho#ld do it too17& /e admits that this is a christened 0ersion of hat *uddhists

do. The difference is that 2ho is he(ped b, the /o(, Spirit. The on(, thing e must do is keeping our thoughts c(ean. /ere is a difference ith the thoughts of Joseph Prince. for he states that e shou(d not tr, on our o n to keep our thoughts c(ean. because then e tr, b, ourse(0es again. Misua(i?ing is the ke, to hea(th and financia( prosperit, and that is hat !od ants for us in the end. Lack of abi(it, to imagine is our o n case. but ,ou must constant(, put this into practice. he point is that there m#st be !oc#s on the s#bconscio#s tho#ght1)& 0ho has de"eloped a methodolog* $hich $e can appl*& Popu(ar(, said this theor, is ca((ed the =name it and c(aim it>9approach. To enforce his theor, he drags in the *ib(e. This is not the same as getting to the same theor, from the *ib(e.
!his is called "entalis" 1# Possibility thin$ing% positive confession and affir"ations% self&estee"% i"aging% 'inner healing' and visuali(ation all branch fro" the fa"ily tree of reprogra""ing the invisible subconscious "ind. !rue believing does not ta$e place in the conscious "ind but rather in the subconscious. Si"ilarly% positive confession% affir"ations% and visuali(ation 'create reality' for the subconscious "ind. ')nner healing' wor$s on the basis that healing ta$es place through reprogra""ing the subconscious "ind with a 'positive' e*perience

./ere too e see that this kind of theo(ogies originate in countries and regions here a number of this kind of ideas ha0e found breeding ground in the cu(ture of the peop(e. That does not sa, that it is therefore rong b, definition and from the 0er, start. There are definite(, points here this kind of theories ha0e an interface ith our e0ange(ica( 0ie . 7e can definite(, state that e. as 2hristians in the estern or(d probab(, are too (itt(e a are or our ro(e in the spiritua( rea(m and e (ea0e something behind there. *ut apart from our backgrounds e ha0e on(, !od6s 7ord as basis and <uite often e cannot match these theories ith it. a(though the, seem positi0e and nice at first sight. The number of fo((o ers and e0en the number of onders in such a church are no argumentsI the *ib(e is c(ear about that. Let6s fo((o up on that =7ord Faith Theo(og,> on hich man, 'merican preachers ha0e bui(d their emporium. 's a ru(e in these theo(ogies the @ ea(th and hea(th@ aspect comes for ard strong(,. In 0ie of te;ts and studies of Prince ,ou cou(d conc(ude that = ea(th and hea(th@. @7ord Faith@ and @0isua(i?ing@ are not unimportant aspects in his preaching. *, this I do not rank him for %&& G ith the prosperit, teachers. but ,ou can6t a0oid stating that there is <uite a number of interfaces. Though the prosperit, teachers focus attention on Jesus 2hrist as e(( in their preaching. The, think that grace through Jesus p(a,s a part in much more fie(ds than :ustification on(, and that e shou(d high(ight a(( these aspects. *ut attention is focussed on Jesus in such a a, that it is constant(, emphasi?ed that Jesus ishes for nothing better than making us happ,. hea(th, and prosperous. 4ot e becoming sma((er so !od can do /is ork. but e becoming bigger and Jesus being focussed on us. The <uestion is hether Jesus comes for ard as centra( point and goa( in our (i0es or as a person focused on us ho focuses his attention on usK Prosperit, Teaching has negati0e connotation and supporters of the Joseph Prince Theo(og, i(( ant to offer resistance. It ou(d be better not to use the idea =prosperit, teaching> and especia((, go into its contents. It is :ust hard to find another term. because ith respect to content a (ot corresponds ith this theor,. Shou(d there arise a discussion on this 0isua(i?ing or positi0e thinking or the = ea(th and prosperit,> teaching then the *ib(e is short(, dragged into. '(though it is not possib(e to bui(d the theor, from the *ib(e it is true that ,ou can find some scriptura( passages to found a theor, for near(, e0er, theor,. Fo((o ers of the theories mentioned abo0e drag in the passage that !od has purposes for ,ou. purposes of peace and not of e0i(. to gi0e ,ou a future and a hope BJer. )#A%%E. because Jesus has come to gi0e us (ife abundant(,. The ma:orit, of (isteners i(( thinkA There is something to it. I ha0e indeed heard that scriptura( passage before. It sounds good to me as e((.

Is it true that the theories mentioned abo0e ha0e common ground ith 4e 'geK That ou(d be a <uite hea0, a((egation. Fet e shou(d not pass it b, :ust (ike that. In the 7est e ha0e been <uite hea0i(, indoctrinated b, $oman 2atho(icism and 2a(0inism. 7e can ith difficu(t, forget this and e must find that for ages e ha0e been taught things that find not enough basis in the *ib(e. 4e 'ge seems a scar, term. but in fact 4e 'ge is nothing more than an accumu(ation of a(( kind of methods. doctrines and e(ements from 0arious orienta( re(igions. among hich *uddhism.

)riental Influences
'ssuming that Prince often sa,s 0er, good things about the p(ace grace shou(d ha0e. That is e;act(, the pointA Sometimes he is right. but often on(, on one side of the stor, and referring to on(, one part. Some accuse him of prosperit, teaching and others of 4e 'ge inf(uences. 5f course. that does not mean that he preaches 4e 'ge. abso(ute(, not. but the backgrounds of faith in 'sia apparent(, do ha0e inf(uence. :ust (ike 2a(0inism has had a strong ho(d on our a, of thinking. The =Po er of positi0e thinking> is up(ifted to an a(most di0ine mechanisms. e0en abo0e !od6s so0ereignt,. 'nother aspect hich can be heard is =0isua(i?ation>. hich is e;p(ained in the chapter abo0e. This in itse(f is no pro0e that PrinceCs message is rong and neither that nothing of his preaching is right. *ut e0en good preachers must be a(ert for the inf(uences hich p(a, a ro(e. It is interesting to see ho strong(, it is ad0ised against to trust in one6s o n and comp(, ith the (a on one6s o n. hi(e proc(aiming in faith. 0isua(i?ing and spiritua((, c(aiming positions. is o0eremphasi?ed. If this e0entua((, fai(s. the same fee(ing of gui(t is ith the be(ie0er because he did not e;ercise enough faith and imagined spiritua((,. Misua(ising is one of the most prominent techni<ues used in 4euro9(inguistic programming B4LPE. a method to get in contro( o0er situation and to change situation through menta( imagination. 4LP is a method originating in 4e 'ge and often used in management training. Some kind of Bsometimes transcendenta(E meditation is usefu( for 4LP. because ,ou i(( get better and better in 0isua(i?ing. So a(though positi0e thinking definite(, has a better resu(t than thinking negati0e(, and the *ib(e teaches us to think positi0e(, Bbe(ie0e that ,ou ha0e a(read, recei0ed it..E this form of 0isua(isation is rea((, 0er, c(ose to

peop(e hea( their o n bod, of cancer or impro0e their immune s,stem. 'n, a,. 4LP to a (ot of Dutch peop(e is in the a(ternati0e circuit. hi(e it is a much more accepted method in 'sia. :ust (ike a (ot of emp(o,ees take part in ,oga before the, start orking. The Singapore Theo(og, states that Peter and Pau( do not teach us that i((ness and accidents can be part of our suffering on earth and it is stated that suffering through i((ness or accidents is b, definition something brought to us b, Satan. 'nd then it sa,s.................i((ness is a part of the curse of the (a . So hen e are i((. it means e are sti(( under the curse of the La . because it sa,s that he ho is under the (a is under the curse. This reasoning is comp(ete(, rong for a coup(e of reasons. If Pau( and Peter do not sa, that i((nesses and accidents can be part of a 2hristian6s suffering this does not mean ,ou can " simp(, for the fact the, do not mention it " dra the conc(usion that it is therefore true. It ou(d ha0e been different if the, DID ha0e mentioned that it cou(d 45T be part of a 2hristian6s suffering. If I do not mention something it does not mean that I do mean it. 'n academic comp(ete(, rong conc(usion dra n b, Prince. Pau( did not mention the 7or(d to be round either. (et a(one Peter and ,et the or(d as round an, a,. +oreo0er e0er person ho honest(, thinks. dra s the conc(usion that there are a (ot of i((nesses hich can simp(, not be reasoned nor e;p(ained and that is h, e earth(, creatures ha0e to do ith an imperfect or(d and a or(d ith man, inf(uences against hich e are not a( a,s guarded. though e are sometimes protected against them. Prince states that there is actua((, one true reason h, 2hristians are i(( and eak and die premature(, and that is because the, do not ackno (edge the hea(ing po er of the *od,. /e states that possession Bb, a demon spiritE and i((ness are treated the same a, in the *ib(e because the, both stem from the de0i(%8. In 'cts %&A38 it sa,s that Jesus ent about doing good and hea(ing a(( that ere oppressed of the de0i(. 4o Joseph Prince is going to gi0e an e;p(anation that shou(d to no one be hard to refute. ,et is re0ea(ing. Prince sa,s that Jesus ent about hea(ing a(( that ere oppressed of the de0i(. From this he dra s the conc(usion that Jesus hea(ed on(, peop(e ho ere oppressed b, the de0i( and that therefore a(( peop(e he hea(ed ere oppressed b, the de0i(. In a(( Prince6s books ,ou see the same a, of reasoning o0er and o0er again
1+

,oo$let -ealth and .holeness !hrough the -oly Co""union% page /#

and he dra s conc(usions hich cannot be dra n at a(( based on hat is ritten in that 0erse. Jesus hea(ed peop(e ho ere oppressed b, the de0i(. but it as not true that a(( peop(e ho ere i(( ere oppressed b, the de0i(. So ,ou cannot state that e0er,one ho is i(( is oppressed b, the de0i(. ' ra0en is a bird but that does not make a(( birds ra0ens. It does not in0o(0e the fact that peop(e ho are oppressed cannot be i(( and it does not in0o(0e that the, can be instant(, hea(ed the moment the, are set free either. In other ordsA connections cannot be (inked up indiscriminate(,. *eing i(( is not a( a,s because of demon possession. /o e0er in his books Joseph Prince is 0er, firm about this. Just (ike forgi0eness =being hea(th,> is not on(, a promise but a !od9gi0en right for e0er, 2hristian. If ,ou are i((. ,ou must conc(ude that ,ou are under the curse. %# If e 9 as Joseph Prince sa,s " ha0e come from under the (a . e are a a, from the curse and e i(( become financia((, prosperous and hea(th, because of /is grace. The other a, round it is true that e must ascribe i((ness and po0ert, to being under the (a and the curse ith hich it is connected. If peop(e in a congregation are i((. it means that the, are under the curse as e((. hich is the direct resu(t of being under the (a . So. ,ou can be(ie0e in the offer of the Lord Jesus and ,ou can on(, recei0e :ustification through that B hat e e;pect ithin the e0ange(ica( teachingE. but as soon as ,ou tr, to (i0e b, the (a on(, a (itt(e. it seems as if ,ou dispute that that peop(e speak about the (a in an, case because it in0o(0es danger. 't the same time this theo(og, sa,s that the (a is ho(,. righteous and good. That is bound to be because $omans 7 speaks about it. but Prince immediate(, adds that the (a is strict. unbendab(e and unre(enting(,. This does not (ea0e much of ho(, and good. because ho can find something (ike that good. *ut that is not too bad because in the end the good things Bnot the commandments and interdictionsE of the (a i(( be ritten in ,our heart an, a,. 'nd thus the circ(e seems round again.

conclusion
The theo(og, preached b, Joseph Prince does not stand a(one. Speakers in the Lnited States as e(( hand(e this basis for their preaching. It is striking. ho e0er. that to man, 2hristians it is not e0en so eas, to make the distinction at first sight The man, one9(iners seems to sound nice and the, are e0en part(, true. That is because these speakers connect their use of ord to the use of ord as e kno it from ithin the e0ange(ica( mo0ement. +oreo0er. a number of issue is rapped in such a a, that it does not

10

Sa"e boo$let% page /1

predominate and ,ou ha0e to dig deep to reach the roots of the theo(og,. but if ,ou do so. ,ou rea((, i(( see a big difference. For e;amp(e. ,ou hear Prince rare(, utter e;p(icit(, that the, actua((, preach the predestination teaching and other precarious sub:ect are a0oided during (ectures. 7hen e once deeper stud, the points of departure of this mo0ement. e i(( disco0er the big differences in the (ectures and books. and e i(( understand the (anguage the, use and especia((, the undertone gi0en to it. Due to this the thought behind this theo(og, seems to be ab(e to enter the congregation 0er, easi(,. 2(oser e;amination sho s that on common 2hristian ebsites as e(( Be0en the D5. the Dutch D0ange(ica( *roadcastE speakers of this range of thought are gi0en a c(ear fie(d to pass these thoughts o0er. The, choose not to discuss the most e;treme thoughts but proponents of the theo(og, can bring the basic ideas in the open. 'n, a, e take the 0ie that most speakers preach the message from a sincerit, and some ha0e not ,et searched 0er, deep into the roots and backgrounds. Perhaps this stud, can add to it. Fina((, e hope that Jesus i(( be centra( for ho /e rea((, is. 's (isteners e are ob(iged to in0estigate for ourse(0es. $esearch into the princip(es of e0er, stream of thoughts but a(so the fruit. ' theor, hich is strong(, aimed at man as centre and hich fee(s good because there are hard(, an, ob(igations. does not necessari(, carr, good fruit because of this. of course. In fact it cou(d (a, a 0er, britt(e basis for ,oung 2hristians and e gather a(( kind of teachers because our ears are spoi(t. '(though this document is not meant to map the ho(e range of ideas of Joseph Prince. it gradua((, became c(ear that the theo(og, of the 4e 2reation 2hurch is of a different ca(ibre than e kno ithin the Dutch Fu(( D0ange(ica( 2hurch. It is difficu(t that the in0estigation re<uires sharpness to re:ect the circu(ar reasoning. Lord. if e do not see Four 7ord c(ear an,more. ho (ight i(( our path beK /a0e Four /o(, Spirit opening our spirit to the rea( c(earness of Four 7ord and grant us 7isdom. Lead us a(ong ,our a,s so e do not re(, on our o n understanding.
This text is only meant for private use, it is only a rough copy and a pamphlet. According to the anonymous writer.

Foun ation! "orkgroup #$ack to the $i%le# Postal address6 Pop#lierenstraat 51, 8277 2K Kampen, he <etherlands= tel& 038-3328238 >-mail address6 b*blos?solcon&nl /ebsite address6 $$$&bac%tothebible&nl >.ec#ti"e committee6 0hairman6 'ng& @& "&d& Kraats Secretar*Atreas#rer6 Dhr& (&(& Doorn he !o#ndation is registered #nder no& S 025302 0hamber o! 0ommerce at B$olle= (cco#nt n#mber6 75&02&)7&213= Post o!!ice giro )815C)8= '2(< <:8) '<,2 0750 2)72 13