Everyone knows I am not a big fan of Rev Kong Hee (from City Harvest Church). Personally I am against some of his teachings, particularly the health and wealth gospel. However, in his article below I find that he has good grasp of the fundamental and historical gospel and has accurately identified the errors of the 'extreme grace' camp.
Questionable Teachings from the 'extreme grace' camp
I have a loved one from this extreme grace camp and it is often frustrating to talk to her. Here I shall describe my frustrations talking to her as well as others.
These are my own thoughts. They are based on my interaction with the camp especially lately Bro Stanley, a blogger (I have also read some books by Joseph Prince) and may not perfectly represent their beliefs.
1. The extreme grace camp teaches things that are unhistorical
The 'extreme grace' camp teaches that because of Christ's perfect redemption on the cross and sinners being completely justified by God (both true), there is now no need to continually repent or confess our sins (false). Repentance is a thing of the past; it is the duty of the unjustified sinner. Christians do not need to repent since we are already forgiven of all our sins. Once justified, we are perfect and no sin shall be accounted to us, therefore no need for repentance.
What is frustrating is this: Any accounts of people confessing their sins in the OT (eg. David's "Against you, you only have I sinned") is simplistically explained away as "they are not justified in the NT sense/ they belong to the old covenant, therefore they need to repent." Furthermore, any appearance of repentance of sins in the NT are simplistically reduced to "it happened before Christ actually died (eg. the Lord's prayer's "Forgive us our sins..."), or justifications that the text does not actually speak to believers (eg. 1 Jn 1:9 "If you confess your sins...")
Attempts are made to justify why being unhistorical is not such a bad thing. The frequent attempt is to simply talk about the Church's error in believing the earth is flat and that the earth is at the centre of the universe (geocentric model), only to be corrected by Copernicus' heliocentric model. See, they say, the Church in history has made these errors and thus cannot be counted upon. There is some truth in this statement, of course. Ultimately we believe Scripture to the the authority of our faith, yet at the same time anyone who chooses to undermine history is a fool. Because it is precisely from history that many false doctrines are rejected and the truth upheld from 2000 years of fierce debates and reformation. Is not much of your current belief thanks to the Council of Nicaea, Chalcedon, thanks to Athanasius, Luther, Calvin? Therefore though history is not authoritative, it is still useful nonetheless and one should not brush it aside. Treating history as useless and always using the cliched example of the Church's geocentrism error often open new ways of interpretations that are counter to what the bible teaches. Being historical may not always be right; but being unhistorical stands a higher chance of being wrong (read: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Health and Wealth Gospel).
It is extremely frustrating that the 'extreme grace' camp finds absolutely no problem with interpreting texts on their own and not agreeing with most commentators/teachers.
2. The extreme grace camp incorrectly divides the Word of God
I have mentioned issues that I found to be terribly unhistorical and wrong (eg. no need to continually repent), yet face much trouble persuading people from that camp. Why? The fundamental problem, I believe, is that the 'extreme grace' camp has a poor grasp of what the Old Testament and OT laws function. They tend to focus much on grace so much so that the law of God become secondary.
For example, it is frustrating to hear Christians saying that the Holy Spirit does not convict believers of sin, since God is gracious and convicting us of sins make us fearful and not have a good relationship with him. What God wants is consciousness of himself and grace, not obeying the laws. I have replied the person that obedience is a fruit of our faith, and discipline and conviction from God should not produce dreaded fear in us, but rather thanksgiving, since the Father is disciplining his sons. Someone who finds God's kind awakening and the Spirit's conviction an obstacle to his faith should re-examine himself. Avoiding the Spirit's conviction, the Father's chastening and continual repentance are false and sinful forms of freedom.
But what, to me, is the greatest difficulty in dialoguing with them is their resolute but utterly simplistic division of the bible into "the old and new covenants". Sure there is such a division in the Book of Hebrews (but not so simplistic), but to them, it is as if the old covenant has almost zero relevance for us anymore.
David confessed his sins, but that's his job, he's in the old covenant, we are in the new. Jospeh suffered trials and God produced good out of evil, but he's in the old covenant, we in the new should expect blessings. The list goes on. It seems that many things that happened in the OT (or even slightly before Christ's atonement on the cross!) have no applications for Christians today.
3. The extreme grace camp fails to distinguish between justification and sanctification.
We have been pronounced righteous and not guilty and the perfect righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us, so that the man who has no sin has become sin in our place. Legally we stand before God blameless because of Christ's perfect work of the cross. This is justification; we are declared righteous, once for all, and all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven. Everyone knows this.
However, the extreme grace camp err in that they are confused between justification and the progressive sanctifying work of the Spirit in the believer's life. These are two different things! Read Romans 7 and we find a justified Paul continuing to struggle with sin in his life. Unlike what they claim, Paul has a consciousness of his sinful nature, his flesh and how it operates contrary to his Spirit life. He has subjective guilt of his transgressions. It is this sanctifying work of the Spirit that will continue to convict believers of sin, awaken them to their disobedience towards God, keep on renewing their minds and purifying them more and more from the pollution of sin in their lives. Believers press on defeating sin more and more as they are conformed in degrees in the image of Jesus Christ.
Many times they will answer, "But we are perfect! Our sins are all forgiven!" Yes, of course, no one should deny that, but understand you are speaking in terms of justification. The inability to distinguish between our legal perfection before God, and our continual struggle against sin and the sanctifying work of the Spirit which requires our obedience, repentance and confession of sins is a deadly mistake which might rob us of the desire and zealousness to press on toward holiness.
I wish one day they might awake to the bible's true teaching on continual repentance, God's chastening, suffering, God's sovereignty and goodness.
A La Carte (April 18)
1 day ago
2 thoughts about this:
ReplyDelete1. If the "questionable teachings" as claimed by Rev Kong Hee are indeed being preached and believed by multitudes, I believe this is a cause for worry.
2. I do not agree with most of Rev Kong's teachings and associations, but if these "questionable teachings" cause him to actually search the Scriptures more carefully, then I think it's a good thing. Alot of times I get very discouraged by what I witness in our Christian circles (locally and overseas), but incidents like this remind me that our Sovereign God is not asleep and unaware. Even when our human actions seem to thwart His plans, He's never caught by surprise or at a loss.
Take heart. We should do as much as we can to defend the gospel truth, in love, in humility and in fear of the Lord, but never forget our Lord who is still in control.
Hi Brother,
ReplyDeleteI am from NCC. In this new covenant. Whenever I sin, I thank Lord that thru Jesus Christ, all my sins are judged in the body of Christ.
The bible tells us to Praise and Worship our Abba Father. It did not tell us to confess how sinful we are. Roman 7, Paul tried to walk right by himself but he could not. It was in Roman 8 when he let Holy spirit leads that he walk the life lead by Lord.
Abba Father does not want his children of God to dwell in their sin. Abba knows we are unable to walk a righteous life, that's why He sent Lord Jesus to be our Saviour. If we could walk a righteous life, then we need not Jesus died for us liao.
It's when we submit to our inability to Lord that He could come out of our body to lead us and come through us to do His work.
If you keep on dwelling in the sins that is completely judged in Lord Jesus, how is Lord going to come thru you to do His part?
I hope you could understand the heart beat of Abba Father better. Pls visit my blog, It's Holy Spirit lead posting.
Shalom!
Hi Derrick,
ReplyDeletePoint #1:
You said "Being historical may not always be right" and it is precisely for this reason that I reject the use of the argument of "This basically contradicts 2,000 years of mainstream evangelical Christian belief" by Rev Kong Hee (or any other preacher) to justify his point. Just prove your point through scriptures in context.
It is important to note that I am NOT saying that EVERYTHING that well-respected theologians like Calvin or Luther said is wrong. I am saying that NOT EVERYTHING they said is correct. We can question and disagree with them on certain points; it does not mean that we have to accept what they said on a all-or-nothing basis.
I disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of "repentance" and I hope to address this topic on my own blog one day.
It is also important to understand what is the old covenant and new covenant, and interpret scripture in that context. The apostle Paul expounded on the two different covenants in Hebrews 10 and Galatians 4. This is also related to your point #2 of rightly dividing the Word of God.
Point #2:
Regarding the Holy Spirit convicting Christians of sin, if you correctly divide the Word, you will see that the Holy Spirit convicts the unbeliever of sin (singular, not plural "sins") which is the sin of unbelief in Christ, and convicts the believer of righteousness (not sin) - John 16:8-11.
I have written a post on it and explained the verses in detail - http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2009/05/questionable-questionable-teachings-7.html
Point #3:
We both agree that "Legally we stand before God blameless because of Christ's perfect work of the cross. This is justification; we are declared righteous, once for all, and all our sins, past, present and future are forgiven."
However, I disagree with you that the "sanctifying work of the Spirit that will continue to convict believers of sin". As I mentioned in point #2, the sanctifying work of the Spirit is to continue to convict believers of righteousness; the Holy Spirit reassures the believer that, despite failing now and then by committing sins, he is declared righteous because all his sins, past, present and future are forgiven, once and for all.
This reassurance of God's love and grace gives the believer strength to pick himself up from where he has fallen, and continue on his walk with God "for sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace." (Rom 6:14)
Of course, this grace of God can be abused and Paul has also warned against it - "For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another." (Gal 5:13) BUT this possibility of abuse does not deter Paul from preaching the gospel of grace.
In fact, Paul's gospel of grace was so "extreme" that he was even accused of preaching license to sin - "Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved." (Rom 3:8)
Dear Stanley
ReplyDeleteI also said that being unhistorical is more likely to be wrong. I agree on the need to recognise the old and new covenants. My problem is that we can't do it so simplistically like many people do.
I also disagree that Paul preached the same sort of extreme grace that JP taught. JP's teaching is closer to the Word Faith Movement than to the apostolic gospel. I wonder if you have any interaction with the Reformed, Methodist, Anglican circles? (apart from the usual mistaken belief that they teach legalism)
I have replied to one of your points in my new post, on continual repentance. I regret that I won't be pursuing other issues. Thank you for your time of gracious interaction.
Hi Derrick and others,
ReplyDeleteThis is a late response here. I've read a little on this blog and I can see that some/most people here come from a Reformed perspective - or at least appreciate Reformed theology.
If you've read my posts from my blog on New Creation, I've always stated that I've learned a lot from Reformed authors and in fact the person that influenced me most in my view of grace (in relation to justification) today is Michael Horton. I don't agree with everything in NCC and I do see things different from many pro-NCC bloggers, but on the most essential issue of grace, I agree with NCC. I held pretty much the same view regarding grace and justification as Pastor Prince even before I knew New Creation Church existed. And while many Reformed Christians who hold to similar views on grace as Horton would be horrified by other aspects of Pastor Prince's teachings, I think if they can see past the other things, they will find New Creation Church as one of the best in terms of the preaching of the gospel and the centrality of the gospel.
It was Michael Horton and his Lutheran/Reformed friends that taught me grace in justification. And people who have actually been following a lot of his ministry and writings on the issue of grace and the gospel will realize that in many areas, he differs from a lot of Reformed and Puritan authors. Over 10 years ago, I engaged many Reformed Christians on this issue. I even wrote to Horton's buddies at White Horse Inn and exchanged quite a few emails with them at that time because I was wondering how come what I've been hearing from them were different from many other Reformed and Puritan authors that I've read. And they themselves acknowledged that what they believe on certain things may not be totally what other Reformed Christians would believe.
I say all this and I emphasize a lot of this on my blog because many people think what Pastor Prince teaches on grace is really far out. Pastor Prince has taught some unique things on grace in regards to sanctification and I think what he says is worth an impartial reading - which many are not willing to give. But the thing that has liberted most people in NCC has been his view on grace as it relates to justification. And to me, what he says doesn't greatly differ from what Horton believes - or what many Lutherans believe too. In fact, you have people like RT Kendall and Eaton who have Reformed roots who also take a strongly non-legalistic view of things. To me a lot of Reformed and especially Puritan writings are extremely legalistic.
So Pastor Prince's theology regarding justification is not far out there and is certainly not unhistorical. And even his view that the 10 Commandments are not for Christians today is held by many Reformed folks in the New Covenant Theology tradition. He gets a lot of flak for his view on the 10 Commandments, but there are more people evaluating the traditional Reformed view - not just Pastor Prince.
I'm a huge fan of Biblical Theology too - not theology that is biblical, but theology that is sensitive to the history of redemption. And that's another reason why I appreciate Pastor Prince's gospel-centered and Christ-centered preaching that recognizes that there is newness in the New Covenant.
Again, people can disagree with a lot of things that Pastor Prince preaches. But on many issues, a lot of criticism results from a lot of ignorance. There are a lot of bible scholars who believe in the most essential aspects of his view on grace relating to justification, and same for his view on the law.
Hi Stillhaventfound
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful comment and your ability to see things past the "NCC lens". Similarly I hope I can see things past my "Reformed lens". Fyi, I do not agree with everything the Reformed/Puritans say.
You said, "To me a lot of Reformed and especially Puritan writings are extremely legalistic." I do agree that this holds certain truth, especially from the Puritans.
However, their emphasis on works was never taught to gain their justification but out of an extremely zealous desire to please God; in this respect they are very clear. If they err, they err on the side of godliness, not on the side godlessness.
However, there are many more Reformed and non-Reformed folks who are non-legalistic (in fact, anyone who teaches the bible correctly cannot be legalistic!) I hope you get a chance to read them.
I am not very familiar with Horton, but let's not hide behind loaded terms like "Reformed", and go down to the specifics: does he also believe that repentance for Christians is unnecessary, that the Spirit does not convict us of sin, that there is no need to think of ourselves as sinners anymore? I'm not so much concerned with what Reformed Theology says, as what Scripture says.
I have said elsewhere that JP has indeed done the church a favor by helping Christians stuck in their legalism to rediscover grace. His message is primarily to combat legalism. However, many Christians aren't legalists in the first place if they understand the bible rightly, and therefore the rest of us may find his message to be terribly imbalanced.
Contrary to what you believe, I have read JP's works with much impartiality, Destined to Reign and other smaller books by him, courtesy of my sister from NCC. I have also calmly and reasonably written down what I disagreed.
P/S: Interesting you would paint Horton as someone who would approve of JP. Nevertheless I have his book on the Ten Commandments, "The Law of Perfect Freedom". I will read it and form my opinion.
Hi Derrick,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I agree that the Reformed/Puritans who are legalistic do not do so attempting to teach justification by works. It is not their intention, and yet a lot of harm is done and for many who read/listen to them, they would think that they are not good enough to be saved based on the confusing signals and confusing and contradictory messages they hear.
Derrick, I read Reformed authors for 5-10 years of my life and still read Reformed writings occasionally. My view is that many still are not clear on this issue. At least, I think if we really go into things in depth, Michael Horton and gang do hold to a less-legalistic view.
Is repentance unnecessary? I think you have to elaborate on this. What do you mean unnecessary? To me, the whole of the Christian life is a life of repentance and transforming more and more into the image of Christ. I do not believe NCC or Pastor Prince would disagree. Where I differ with many Christians is probably 1) the means and the focus of our message as we seek to promote repentance or godliness or growth in Christlikeness in Christians and 2) the extent to which we will judge the salvation of a person if we don't see clear signs or fruits of repentance.
Regarding whether the Spirit convicts us of sin, I don't have a clear conviction on that although I lean towards what Joseph Prince's view. I'm sure Horton believes that the Spirit does. Joseph Prince's view is that the Spirit doesn't and I think he has a good case and that's why I wrote previously it deserves to be read impartially. I didn't say Horton would agree on Prince on this one. I've always said that I agree with Prince on the most essential aspects of his view on grace. That is, his view on grace in relation to justification. Whether the Spirit convicts Christians of sin is not something related to justification. The same for the 10 commandments. Horton takes a more traditional view of the 10 Commandments I think. This doesn't relate to justification but sanctification. I would agree with Joseph Prince, but again, it wasn't Joseph Prince who introduced me to this view but Reformed authors who are beginning to differ from the traditional Reformed view of the place of the law in the Christian's life.
I think it's wrong for people who criticize Joseph Prince on his view of the 10 Commandments to not acknowledge that his views are not unique in the Church but that many Christians also believe similarly. People who do so are either dishonest or ignorant of Christian scholarship in this area.
Should we think ourselves as sinners? Again, this is in the realm of sancitification. The traditional Reformed view is that we're both justified and sinners at the same time. I have no problem with that in a sense because in a way we still sin. But I don't think that's the emphasis in the New Covenant. We should be thinking of ourselves in Christ, not as sinners. Our identity is that of a saint, not a sinner.
I would disagree with you when you say that many Christians aren't legalist in the first place. I think there are many more than we'd like to admit. And I think that's the reason why NCC has grown so big. I think Jesus recognized that too that's why his rebukes were towards the self-righteous, not towards the sinners.
...cont'd
...I have argued in my blog (here and here) that Joseph Prince is not biblically balanced in preaching so much of the indicatives and hardly preaching any imperatives. Pro-NCC bloggers criticize me for this. Any mention of what we should "do" is criticized by them as legalistic and as not understanding or experiencing grace. I disagree with such reactionary thinking. However, I understand why Pastor Prince focuses so much on the indicatives at the expense of preaching the imperatives of Scriptures. I think it's understandable considering how much the church in general has gone in the opposite direction. If I had to choose between a preaching that focuses overwhelmingly on the imperatives and one that focuses overwhelmingly on the indicatives - both sides being wrong and imbalanced - I would choose the one that focuses on the indicatives because I think our preaching should contain more on that than on the imperatives if we understand the bible correctly.
ReplyDeleteHi Derrick and especially stillhaventfound,
ReplyDeleteThe bible said that Lord himself will teaches all about Him, from the smallest to the biggest.
Pastor Prince sermons is about revealing Jesus. The more you know about what Jesus has done for you, the more your faith grow and the more Lord in you come through to lead.
I would like you to go read my June 10th post on My Walk with Jesus. Abba father revealed the stage of my walk there.
You will understand Him better as He explained how the most closest walk to me too.
I am not here to boast, but hope the post will get you a better understanding of our Abba Father.
Shalom!
Hi Stillhaventfound
ReplyDeleteI have read your blog posts and I appreciated your thoughts more now. I have to say I agree more than disagree with you in general.
I believe a lot of modern Reformed writers have steered away from the legalism of the past. In fact, the modern authors that I read, Carson, Piper, MacArthur, Bridges, Grudem, Stott, Packer cannot be said to hold the legalistic views which are more dominant centuries ago.
Thank you for admitting JP's imbalance on the gospel of grace. I disagree with the need to err on his side of indicatives in the same way that I know you would disapprove (as I do) on erring on the Puritans' side of "godly legalism" as well. Like you pointed out, much harm will be done in both cases. I prefer a more balanced approach that modern Reformed writers give. This is where we have to part in our views. Secondly, JP's teachings on other "less essential subjects" like the Holy Communion is too erroneous for my acceptance.
That said, I have pretty much no disagreement with the rest of what you said about repentance and our state of sin. I think we have to allow our disagreements to stay for now, while praying that God continue to teach us. Thank you :)
Hi Derrick,
ReplyDeleteI actually disagree greatly with MacArthur, especially his The Gospel According to Jesus book. To me, his view is very legalistic, but quite similar to many in the evangelical and Reformed scene. In the first part of this article I wrote years ago, I quote him and other Reformed authors like Packer, whom I disagree with. To me, their views are very mainstream. I disagree with them and agree with New Creation Church's take on this issue. And I have argued that Horton and gang would also disagree with the quotes by those authors in my article.
I state this strongly because I think this is precisely why many people have been blessed by New Creation Church - because there are lots out there that still present a relatively legalistic view of the gospel. RT Kendall understands this and so does Reformed Michael Eaton, who wrote a fantastic scholarly book "No Condemnation". You may think that many Reformed (and other evangelical) authors are not legalistic, but I would argue that they are relatively more legalistic than say Horton/Kendall/Eaton and that's precisely the resaon why New Creation has been blessing so many Christians - because they have a view of Bible on the gospel more similar to Horton/Kendall/Eaton than mainstream evangelical Christianity and many people have found freedom and liberty through New Creation's preaching.
I did not say JP is imbalanced in his preaching of the gospel of grace. I said his preaching is generally not balanced in not preaching enough imperatives like the Apostle Paul. Regarding his preaching of the gospel, he is spot on, in my opinion :) There's a difference there. I do not confuse the _gospel_ with just anything in the Bible. The gospel is a particular message in the Bible of Christ's death and resurrection. In his preaching of the _gospel_, I have absolutely no problems.
Yes, we can agree to disagree. I'm good with that. Cheers :)