Joseph Prince and John Piper Sitting in a Tree, K-i-s-s-i-n-g and Why John MacArthur is a Hypocrite
Kinder, Gentler Calvinist
“Not only that, Prince et al are kinder, gentler Calvinists who wouldn’t dream of endorsing a serial sheep abuser like CJ Mahaney.”
I have seen something for some time that I just haven’t had time to write on: Joseph Prince, the charismatic prince of Singapore, knows the Reformation gospel to a “T” and does a phenomenal job of articulating it from the pulpit. Really, the big boys, Piper et al, can’t touch this guy when he talks about the Reformation gospel of progressive justification from the pulpit. Check out the video series from when Prince preached at Joel Osteen’s church. It is the Reformed Justification by Faith Alone [for sanctification also] par excellent bar none.
Yes, yes, Prince has a different application of that gospel in some areas of life. He uses progressive justification to promote prosperity. It is not true that Prince promotes a “prosperity gospel”—that’s a red herring to throw folks off the scent—his gospel is the Reformed gospel of Justification by Faith Alone [for sanctification also] to a “T.” In fact, Prince’s application of the gospel is actually less harmful than the New Calvinist spiritual despots. And there are no charges of spiritual abuse or control issues coming from Prince’s camp as yet. Indeed, the prosperity Gospel Sanctification camp seems to be a kinder, gentler Reformed theology (by golly, that’s a tweet).
I was given the opportunity to squeeze this post into my schedule via a Facebook conversation I stumbled into yesterday. Jo Bowyer of The Reformed Traveler blog stated the following on her FB page:
The Resurgence [I am assuming the New Calvinist Resurgence blog] now quoting Joseph Prince? Seriously?????!!!! The quote they used is this:
“The law justified no one and condemned the best of us, but grace saves even the worst of us.” – Joseph Prince
I wasn’t the least bit surprised. It’s the same gospel. The New Calvinist crowd then picks and chooses who they will associate with according to the application thereof and other criteria. Certain biblical anomalies are acceptable because such and such “has the gospel right and the other issue is secondary” while some have “secondary” 
applications that they deem unacceptable. This not only explains the strong ecumenical flavor of New Calvinism, but exposes it for its pervasive hypocrisy.
What better example than John MacArthur who continually rags on Joel Osteen and the likes of Prince while he believes the same gospel. Gag, his hypocrisy makes me sick! Not only that, Prince et al are kinder, gentler Calvinists who wouldn’t dream of endorsing a serial sheep abuser like CJ Mahaney. Like MacArthur does.
Yes, the internet is a wonderful gift from God. While the European oppression of the Scriptures was cured by Gutenberg’s press, the deep deception of Reformed theology is exposed by Google. As Joseph Prince would say, “Thank you Jesus.” I said to self: “Self, I am very busy, what’s the best infogoog for this?” So I typed in, “Joseph Prince John Piper” and came up with a jewel.
It was a post by some Reformed guy objecting to the fact that many people think Justification by Faith Alone “for the baptized as well as the unsaved” is all of Joseph Prince’s idea. He makes the case that the Reformers had the idea first, and posted two videos by John Piper and RC Sproul to prove it. Too rich.
Now look, I am really busy and must move on, but you bloggers out there, with the help Gootenberg, can have a lot of fun with this. Trust me, the infogoog on this is vast.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Paul,
“Gootenberg”…I love it. Very nice. 🙂 That’s a keeper.
LikeLike
Paul,
You quoted
” ‘The law justified no one and condemned the best of us, but grace saves even the worst of us.’ – Joseph Prince”
And in an earlier article, you had a problem with the following quote from John McArthur:
“God does not justify whom He does not sanctify, and He does not sanctify whom He does not justify.”
Can you please clarify what exactly is wrong with those statements? I don’t know that I would disagree with them, but perhaps I am missing something.
Andy
LikeLike
Andy,
This is the difficulty with exposing this false gospel: the confounding of justification and sanctification. Both statements are fact when they stand alone, but they are being used to facilitate the conclusion of progressive justification. This is a problem because Jesus said, YOU must be born again. If we cannot participate in the sanctification process because we are not new creatures, but still totally depraved, as New Calvinists plainly teach, then something else is taking the place of the new birth which makes it a false gospel: “You MUST be born again.”
And it is ever so subtle. Notice Prince’s statement. The subject is justification on both sides of the transition “but.” Ok, first, who is “us”? He is speaking in the first person plural, so if he considers himself a Christian, and I am sure he does, “us” is referring to Christians. And therefore, “condemned” is properly in the past tense. But in the second part of the sentence, with “us” still plainly referring to Christians, “saves” is in the present tense, and in the English context implies an ongoing action even though a gerund is not present. In the English, lack of additional words for clarification implies an ongoing tense. A better way of stating this is the fact that in this particular context, as in most, past tense is a state of being, but present is ongoing. Why would he not use past tense on both sides of the transition: “The law justified no one and condemned the best of us, but grace saved even the worst of us.” Why would he say “saves”? Well, listen to more of his teachings–it’s in your face Gospel Sanctification;ie., the same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you. And all in all, never has there been so much discussion about reconciliation among the reconciled.
Now, MacArthur really doesn’t play the “missing transition” and the “tense” game that much. But still, a confounding of justification and sanctification can still be argued in his statement. There is only one justification, but three sanctifications: positionally separated (past) progressively separated (present-ongoing), and final separation (future). MacArthur’s context is justification, which only includes positional sanctification and future sanctification per Roman’s 8:30. Here, the statement you refer to was regarding what Martin Luther taught about justification–that was Mac’s context, and Luther made no distinction between progressive sanctification and justification. But at any rate, MacArthur doesn’t qualify his statement as to what sanctification he is talking about or the tense which at the very least is extremely sloppy hermeneutics.
paul
LikeLike
Paul,
Thank you for clearing this up. I am usually suspect of “sound bite” theology with the pithy little catch phrases that sound good and everyone will easily remember. But when you put them in context it is easy to see the agenda.
Andy
LikeLike
I have read both authors you speak of and differ with your conclusions. Joseph Prince confounds justification and sanctification by insisting that what is true of justification is true of sanctification. The passive reception of justification is thought to be how we are sanctified, resulting in a form of quietism. Prince also confounds repentance and faith by quoting one sentence out of a larger entry in Thayer’s lexicon. Thayer says repentance involves changing one’s mind, feeling godly sorrow for sin, and turning from sin. Prince misrepresents Thayer and cites him as a corroborating authority that repentance is nothing more than a change of mind to believe (faith). Joseph Prince confounds all of the varied uses of torah and nomos. He sees all concept of royal or moral law as contained within fulfilled Mosaic Law. He seems to think that when God writes His moral law on our heart it ceases to be His and becomes ours.
In addition to taking Scripture out of context (in spite of his covering statements to the contrary) Prince theological elements out of their systematic contexts. Prince accepts Calvinist eternal security but not Calvinist perseverance of the saints or the Calvinist third use of the law.
His classic, dispensationalist approach to the synoptics allows him to edit Scripture to his liking as does his insistence that 1 John 1 is not addressed to Christians. It is Joseph Prince that acknowledges his indebtedness to Hagin et al. It is Prince that harps incessantly about effortless success and material blessing (with an occassional comment that real success also involves a happy marriage and bodily healing). The grand purpose of Princianism is pleasant circumstances. I have seen and read many Princians who use Prince’s teaching as comfort for their unrepentant lifestyle.
There are many points at which I differ with MacArthur but, having read his work, I believe he is well within the bounds of orthodoxy. I have read Prince’s works (three times each so far) and have watched him on television and YouTube. Princianism is a toxic blend of the Word-Faith (complete with New Thought positive affirmation/confession) heresy with Sandemanian Antinomianism and mystic/higher life quietism. I do not recognize either the MacArthur or Prince of your post though I am continuing to look for them.
“Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true….Inability to distinguish differences in doctrine is spreading far and wide, and so long as the preacher is ‘clever’ and ‘earnest’, hundreds seem to think that it must be all right, and call you dreadfully ‘narrow and uncharitable’ if you hint that he is unsound!” – J. C. Ryle
LikeLike
David,
Thanks for the comment, but your right, we ‘differ.”
LikeLike
I appreciate your kind posting my comment, Paul. Besides the typo in the second paragraph (happened in editing) my comment was faulty in that I failed to mention that I believe a broad consideration of the entire corpus of MacArthur’s work will show he is orthodox on justification. He has, at times, taken great pains to show that justification and sanctification are distinct but — just as the New Testament repeatedly teaches — MacArthur believes these clearly distinct concepts are inseparable. This has always been the orthodox way to harmonize Paul and James, but it is evident withing Pauline writings as well. As I said earlier, I differ with MacArthur on some important points but I do not think he is a hypocrite or a heretic.
LikeLike
“The law justified no one and condemned the best of us, but grace saves even the worst of us.”
This devilish misreading of the Law as if it is some failed attempt to “save” people from a fictional original sin and default status of damnation to hell that doesn’t even exist is the cause of ALL the problems in the Western world, not just religious but social and political as well.
We are not damned by default and so no solution is needed to the nonexistent problem. Therefore, the Law was not given to solve that. Therefore the Law did not fail to solve it. Therefore Paul’s nonsense dichotomy of the Law failed but the gospel will succeed is nonsense. His whole theology is aimed at solving a problem that never existed, and in doing so he created a billion new problems.
LikeLike
I seriously think u have a problem who would want to follow john calvan, is not Calvin who has called us into this fellowship with the holly Spirit, i don’t see anything wrong with prince’s teachings all i see is He preaches Christ and Christ alone that our faith might not rest on him but on Christ not man we are not called to for the calvanist we are called to be Christ’s followers
LikeLike
Romans 9 explains it all but please don’t whitewash it. The “it does not depend on mans effort….” The “it” IS salvation. Jesus said you did not choose me but… etc. New testament is heavy on “Calvinism” at least the salvation part of calvinism. Esau was not loved by God, period. Conditional love is all there is. Personally I don’t believe unconditional love makes since. God does not love those he throws in hell and he does not allow those he loves to throw themselves in hell, yea I guess I’m kinda calvinistic. Every time I here a preacher say God loves everyone there is a little voice from the back of the church where I’m sitting “except Esau.” I do get weary of the constant rejection of Calvinism. The question is predetermination with or without free choice towards salvation. God allowing a free choice of rejection and not stopping it would still be predetermined if he knows the outcome and allows it. Plain and simple logic.
LikeLike
Chuck,
What is plain and simple logic, as far as we can understand it, and for certain the most logical paradox if you want to call it one, is the answer to the question, “Why would God allow evil in the world?” Answer: freewill is an important pillar of metaphysics. And let’s be clear, predeterminism is not unique. Predeterminism has been the dominate philosophy driving the vast majority of all civilizations since the beginning of time. In the secular realm it is “fate,” “destiny,” etc., in religious realms fate and destiny are personified.
Freewill and predeterminism are the two trees of philosophy, and the fruit of each are historically apparent; predeterminism has brought nothing but slaughter and misery upon the earth. It is the driving force behind slavery, poverty, starvation in third world civilizations, communism, Islam, and geographical oligarchy in general.
Its kissing cousin is authority. Predeterminism began in the garden when the serpent suggested to Eve that she couldn’t really understand God without his superior metaphysical insight. He was the supposed authority on God. In contrast, the linchpin of human wellbeing is the following: God speaks to man directly without human mediators. God seeks reconciliation with all people individually. The only authority is what God says to individuals, not what other men say he is saying.
But in regard to those who want to claim they speak for God, and in most cases rule in God’s stead, what is their proof? God has rarely come to earth and ordained certain individuals. This is where predeterminism comes in. As church historian John Immel well notes, every religious leader who has ever claimed authority over God’s people has done so in accordance with “preordination.” They are “called” of God. Every pastor, pope, and snake oil salesman who has ever lived has his/her own story of how God revealed their “calling.” Verily, God had his hand on them before the foundation of the world.
Others us education, intimidating massive institutions built on the backs of serfs, and the sword to affirm what God has supposedly preordained.
Somewhere in time immediately after man was kicked out of the garden, spiritual caste was devised, and it was predicated on select individuals ruling over the great unwashed masses in God’s stead. These are preordained individuals who ask their own rhetorical question to the masses, “has God really said…?” It is grounded in the grand presupposition of man’s total inability.
This system was articulated by Plato in the 4th century BC via The Republic, but there has scarcely been anything other than his philosopher king/soldier/producer caste system from the beginning. Calvinism is just one more worn-out bloody song and dance of determinism in world history.
That’s what is “logical” my friend if you wish to go there. Pick the tree you like by its fruits.
Moreover, if you want to further explore what is logical, predeterminism requires the redefinition of many, many, many, words that have commonly understood, if not intuitive, definitions. I could name many, but the primary one is, “hope.” By determinism’s very definition, hope cannot be objective. And if it is not objective, how can it be hope? No one can know for certain whether they have hope or not. The only hope for mankind is that some have hope, but no one will know for certain who has hope until the end. Hence, Protestants can claim until the cows come home that they value life, but their fundamental logic states otherwise, and frankly, their historical fruits bear that out.
Now, in regard to your orthodox regurgitation of Scripture interpretation flowing from the belief that you are unable to ascertain truth for yourself; your appeal isn’t really to Scripture, it is to what Protestant philosopher kings say that Scripture means. Your problem with me is that I think I can know truth. Per the theme of this year’s “Liberation” conference featuring the who’s who of Neo-Calvinism, going to the Bible for “information” is “evil,” and “nasty theology.” Neo-Calvinists are now plainly stating what Calvin stated from the beginning: you must continue to receive ongoing grace to remain saved, and that grace can only be found under the grace-giving Christocentric preaching of Reformed elders. Mainline Calvinists are now saying this publically in no uncertain terms. How can one even take Protestantism seriously, and Calvinism in particular?
Calvinism is a laughable naked emperor. It has survived all of these years by distracting the masses with election Scripture-stacking contests when its fundamental soteriology is clearly grounded in progressive justification. Predeterminism is the root of the poisonous tree of progressive justification bearing the rotten fruit of antinomian behavior.
After all, if justification is finished, what do we need the philosopher kings for? We don’t, and nothing strikes more fear in them than the possibility of people investigating the cause of all the smoke they want to discuss to keep people from their dirty little secret…
…they replace Christ as the one mediator between God and men with their Christocentric progressive justification false gospel.
paul
LikeLike
Since you are so critical of others, what is your doctrine?
LikeLike
My doctrine is literal new birth resulting in the baptism of the Spirit which is passing from being under condemnation of the law to upholding the law with love without fear of condemnation, not progressive justification that denies a literal new birth which is the doctrine of your god John Piper. And why do you come to this blog, and being here, ask what the doctrine of the author is? This isn’t church, we don’t think for you. This blog has a search engine; so, type in key words and do your own research unless you are afraid your brain will overheat and maybe explode.
LikeLike