The Gospel of Grace or Gospel of Radical Grace

The Gospel of Grace or Gospel of Radical Grace



In view of the unfolding events in the church, it is important for us to explain the issues surrounding the so called Gospel of Grace or Radical Grace as taught by Joseph Prince, New Creation Church , Singapore .



The Gospel of Grace is a stream of teaching that was already present during the early church, called antinomianism (anti-“nomos” or law) then, which is the exact opposite of legalism. Antinomianism is the extreme end of being “under grace and free from law” which resulted in many problems in the early church (Jude, Galatians, Romans etc).



In a nutshell, since we have been justified in Christ by faith alone through grace which is a gift of God; Law has no place or worth in a believer’s life; because we cannot earn salvation through it. Therefore, obedience is not a necessary part of Christian salvation. There are dangers associated with this type of teaching. Those propagating the Gospel of Grace will deny they are antinomianist. It would be wise to evaluate their teachings based on the observations below.



J.I. Packer in his book “Concise Theology” (1993) identified the following types of antinomianism:

1. Dualistic Antinomianism

“Dualistic antinomianism appears in the Gnostic heretics against whom Jude and Peter wrote (Jude 4-19; 2 Peter 2). This view sees salvation as for the soul only, and bodily behavior as irrelevant both to God’s interest and to the soul’s health, so one may behave riotously and it will not matter.”

2. Spirit-Centered Antinomianism

“Spirit-centered antinomianism outs such trust in the Holy Spirit’s inward prompting as to deny any need to be taught by the law how to live. Freedom from the law as a way of salvation is assumed to bring with it freedom from the law as a guide to conduct. In the first 150 years of the Reformation era this kind of antinomianism often threatened the church, and Paul’s insistence that a truly spiritual person acknowledges the authority of God’s Word through Christ’s apostles (1 Cor. 14:37; cf. 7:40) suggests that the Spirit-obsessed Corinthian church was in the grip of the same mind set.”

3. Christ-Centered Antinomianism

“Christ-centered antinomianism argues that God sees no sin in believers, because they are in Christ, who kept the law for them, and therefore their actions make no difference, providing that they keep believing. But 1 John 1:8-2:1 (expounding 1:7) and 3:4-10 point in a different direction, showing that it is not possible to be in Christ and at the same time to embrace a sinful way of life.”

4. Dispensational Antinomianism

“Dispensational antinomianism holds that keeping the moral law is at no stage necessary for Christians, since we live under a dispensation of grace, not of law. Romans 3:31 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 clearly show, however, that law keeping is a continuing obligation for Christians. “I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law,” says Paul (1 Cor. 9:21).”

5. Situationist Antinomianism

“Situationist antinomianism says that a motive and intention of love is all that God now requires of Christians, and the commands of the Decalogue (10 Commandments) and other ethical parts of Scripture, for all that they are ascribed to God directly, are mere rules of thumb for loving, and may at anytime be disregarded. But Romans 13:8-10, to which this view appeals, teaches that without love as a motive these specific commands cannot be fulfilled. Once more an unacceptably weak view of Scripture surfaces.”

These classifications may not be so distinctive as they overlap each other.



Daniel Steele, more than two centuries ago in his writing “A SUBSTITUTE FOR HOLINESS OR ANTINOMIANISM REVIVED – THE THEOLOGY OF THE SO-CALLED PLYMOUTH BRETHREN EXAMINED AND REFUTED “ defined the creed of an antinomian as follows:

“I was justified when Christ died, and my faith is simply a waking up to the fact that I have always been saved – a realization of what was done before I had any being; that a believer is not bound to mourn for sin, because it was pardoned before it was committed, and pardoned sin is no sin; that God does not see sin in believers, however great sins they commit; that by God's laying our iniquities upon Christ, He became as completely sinful as I, and I as completely righteous as Christ. More over, I believe that no sin can do a believer any ultimate harm, although it may temporarily interrupt communion with God. I must not do any duty for my own salvation. This is included in the new covenant, which is all of it a promise, having no condition on my part. It is a paid up, non-forfeitable, eternal-life insurance policy. Since the new covenant is not properly made with us, but with Christ for us, the conditions, repentance, faith, and obedience, are not on our side, but on Christ's side, who repented, believed, and obeyed, in such a way to relieve us from these unpleasant acts. Hence it is folly to search for inward marks of grace, and it is a fundamental error to make sanctification an indispensable evidence of justification – an error which dampens the joys of him who takes Christ for his sanctification, and plunges him into needless alarms and distresses."

The NCC’s Gospel of Grace teaching is very similar to the above. Our concerns are:

I was justified when Christ died, and my faith is simply a waking up to the fact that I have always been saved – a realization of what was done before I had any being; that a believer is not bound to mourn for sin, because it was pardoned before it was committed, and pardoned sin is no sin; that God does not see sin in believers, however great sins they commit; that by God's laying our iniquities upon Christ, He became as completely sinful as I, and I as completely righteous as Christ. Moreover, I believe that no sin can do a believer any ultimate harm, although it may temporarily interrupt communion with God. The implications:

1. Strong emphasis on the completed work of Christ Jesus on the Cross. Selectively focused on the positional or “forensics” aspects of God’s justification and sanctification in a believer’s life through the cross as an end by itself. Orthodox Christianity sees “justification and sanctification” as a means to an end that requires obedience living in Christ.

2. God does not see sin in believers. He only sees us as His beloved, forgiven and favoured children of God because Christ already paid the horrible price for sin on the Cross. We have become the righteousness of Christ. An incomplete view and emphasis on the teaching of “imputed righteousness” and “counted as righteous”.
3. Christ has forgiven our sins, past present and future. Believers are not bound to confess or mourn for their sins because it has been pardoned. To do so is devalue the work of justification by faith. Such teachings can result in a presumptuous and dull/low view about sin that is still in our lives even as Christians. There is no emphasis for believers to live correctly and actively allow the Holy Spirit to deal with sins. Jesus teaches us the need to actively deal with sins in our lives… If your eyes, hands cause you to sin, pluck it out, cut it off. (Matthew)
4. God’s anger/wrath is only towards non-believers. We believe that God can still be angry with His people and does discipline believers to bring us back to him.

Salvation is a gift of God by grace through faith alone. It is all of it a promise, having no condition on my part. It is a paid up, non-forfeitable, eternal-life insurance policy. The implications:

1. We must focus on the “indicatives” i.e. what Christ has done for us and the benefits/blessings. Let’s stress on the positives continuously.

2. We just need to believe and accept (that is main point) and it is done by faith.

3. We live under grace and not under Law. We should not focus on preaching the “imperatives” (how we should live i.e. the outworking). The more extreme Gospel of Grace will view this as preaching the law and trying to earn salvation. We believe there should be a healthy balance between “indicatives” and “imperatives”. The imperatives must be founded on the indicatives. Christians need to understand the finished work of Christ and respond in obedience to Him.

4. While there is eternal security in God’s promise and work of salvation, it is also man’s responsibility to co-operate and allow the power of the Holy Spirit to help us to live our lives intentionally, purposefully and to show the evidences of grace through obedience and good works in Christ. We would call into question salvation in the first place if there is no evidence of fruits of salvation.

Since the new covenant is not properly made with us, but with Christ for us, the conditions, repentance, faith, and obedience, are not on our side, but on Christ's side, who repented, believed, and obeyed, in such a way to relieve us from these unpleasant acts. The implications:

1. Effortless faith or easy believerism. We are now the recipients of the completed work which is your God-given right. We quote: “Accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour will not only save you from sin and hell, but also give to you health, joy, peace, love, hope, unconditional acceptance, favour, the power to get wealth, all good things you can think of and more.” NCC-website

2. There is no need to talk about obedience, sacrifice, suffering and cost of discipleship because Christ has already suffered these. We just need to claim and receive the blessings that flows from the finished work of the cross – termed as “divine exchange.” We agree and acknowledge the finished work of the Cross but are concerned about emphasis on the blessings minus the commitment of believers.

3. It is alright to live in the excesses of our lives without feeling guilty about it. Where is the teaching about Christian virtues like contentment, simplicity, moderation and thankfulness?

4. The blessings that are ours to claim include “health, power to get wealth and all good things you can think and more.” It is our “birthright”. All over the world, there are Christians who still live in poverty, in persecution because of their faith and yet are able to witness and give thanks in all circumstances. Their birthright is hope in Christ Jesus.

5. Healing through the Holy Communion. The Holy Communion is a sacrament for us to commemorate what Christ has done for us. We are to do it in remembrance of Christ. We believe that God can heal even at Communion but the sacraments are not to be considered the means for healing. Imagine the communion stewards, talking back home the excess sacraments (bread and wine) in plastic bags to be partaken regularly to claim healing!

6. Propensity to divide Scripture into the New Covenant and Old Covenant. It is unscriptural to claim that some teachings of Jesus does not apply in the new covenant because he was addressing the Jews (therefore, does not apply) and before the cross because the new covenant only came into effect through his death and resurrection on the Cross. All Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, rebuking, correction and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.



Hence it is folly to search for inward marks of grace, and it is a fundamental error to make sanctification an indispensable evidence of justification – an error which dampens the joys of him who takes Christ for his sanctification, and plunges him into needless alarms and distresses. The implication:

1. Justification and Sanctification are understood as definitive events. Legally, we are justified and sanctified because Christ paid the cost on the Cross. To interpret this as an end itself is incomplete. We believe this is not the end but it is a means for us to walk in obedience with Christ through the continuous transformation work of Holy Spirit resulting in progressive sanctification and to be more like Him.

2. To teach or preach about obedient living will only burden the believer. They believe if you know Christ, you will live right. 2 Tim 3:16 implores us to teach, rebuke, correct and train through the Word of God.





Eisegesis vs Exegesis

We also have reservations about the tendency of Joseph Prince to read his theology into the text. Eisegesis is the approach in Bible interpretation where the interpreter tries to "force" the Bible to mean something that fits his existing belief or understanding of a particular issue or doctrine. People who interpret the Bible this way are usually not willing to let the Bible speak for itself and let the chips fall where they may. They start off with the up-front goal of trying to prove a point they already believe in, and everything they read and interpret is filtered through that paradigm. The exegetical process takes place in the workshop, the warehouse. Exegesis is a process in private, a perspiring task in which the Bible student examines the backgrounds, meanings, and forms of words; studies the structure and parts of sentences; seeks to ascertain the original textual reading (textual criticism) etc. ... In the privacy of his study, the exegete seeks to comprehend the exact meaning of the Bible passage being studied." Roy B. Zuck's book titled Basic Bible Interpretation.) "



Some teachings from JP that requires closer scrutiny:

1. 1 John 1: 9 does not apply to Christians because it is written to Gentile non-believers (agnostics). If we do a proper exegesis on this epistle, it was written to believers. All epistles in the NT are for believers (corporately or individually, never to unbelievers). John was addressing the proto-Gnostics false teachings amongst believers in the church that claims ('if we, v8) they have no sin. JP’s teaching: Christ has forgiven your sins – past, present and future. Therefore, the teaching that Christians do not need to confess and repent from sins still present is not scriptural.
2. 2 Tim 2:15 - "rightly dividing the word of truth" has come to be understood as dividing the OLD Covenant (law) from NEW Covenant (grace). There is no hint that Paul is talking about Old and New Covenant in this passage. Rather, Paul reminds Timothy to know the Word and handle it with great care (divide = to cut straight, careful and great care) and refers to specific examples, Hymaenus and Philetus who taught there is no resurrection (v17) i.e. wrong teachings. Such teaching is like gangrene and caused many to fall. There is no basis that Paul is asking Timothy to divide the word based on NEW and OLD Covenant. This is just to justify his contention about "grace and law".

3. JP claims that “some of the words which Jesus spoke in the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are part of the old covenant. They were spoken before the cross as He had not yet died. The new covenant only begins after the cross, when the Holy Spirit was given on the day of Pentecost… Some of what Jesus said before the cross and what He said after the cross were spoken under completely different covenants." (Destined to Reign, p.92) The Lord’s prayer in Matt 6 and Luke 11 where Jesus taught his disciples to pray; “forgive us our sins ...” Should we not pray likewise or should we interpret it that it does not apply because Jesus was teaching them to pray before the New Covenant ?