Why Joseph Prince is Dangerous

Is Moral Law still binding? Why Joseph Prince is dangerous? Some often claim we are not under the Law, so OT Law doesn't matter, including 10 commandments in obligatory sense (Joseph Prince). Antinomianism is the word defined for this kind of heresy, which is Anti (against)-nomos-(law). Teaching that says, 'We are not under Old Testament Law as a whole' in doing this, they also 'eliminate moral requirements of the Law' and obliterate any teaching of the Moral law of Old testament as Binding in the New Testament.  Joseph Prince is one of the most famous preacher among Indian viewers as he is cleverly preaching Antinomianism just check few of his statements below, We must not preach the Ten Commandments because they kill, Can you see how church is sick today because of Ten Commandments (Destined to reign, Pg. 120- 121)  'Believers are not under the Law', Joseph Prince even eliminates by this statement moral law as whole (Unmerited Favor, Pg.85) This is a direct attack on Grace, Shall we then Go on sinning because there is Grace? And Joseph Prince and many other Prosperity Preachers like Joice Myre, Kenneth Copeland Indian charlatans also now follow this pattern. This is Dangerous claim. Number of verses are quoted to support this view, Romans 10:4, which says: "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes'' Gal 3;25, And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian." Rom 6:14, "Because you are not under the law, but under grace" Refutation: The reason why Joseph Prince is dangerous is because this kind of perspective in mind, fixes certain mindset which makes you 'irresponsible for your sins', 'fosters in you Disregard for the Holiness in Christian life', 'you don't find your-self obligatory to live by the standards of the Scripture', 'degrades moral character', 'You  become careless to the Old Testament', 'Sanctification is heavily affected by this slack and disregard', 'You may live in freedom of your mind without any obligation to the Lord as your Master and Ruler' but in reality these can lead you into false assumption that you are saved while infact you may have no commitment to the 'commandments of God' and Jesus plainly said, 'If you Love me you will follow my commandments' John 14:15. True Born again person has this distinctive reality which proves that the person is genuinely born again , 1 John 2:4, "Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar".  Did you just realize where People go horribly wrong? Just one word 'False Assumption' of being born again. I can't tell you, how many people today claim to be born again, but in reality few actually are. Others are just 'cheating themselves' which will result in eternal hellfire. You can understand now , if a person has no commitment to the commands of God, no obligation , no responsibility to follow Lord's moral commands 'How can he measure himself to be real Christian or not', because the test of a believer is always 'obedience' not just lip-service or claims of being Christian. Jesus said, 'If you want to follow me you must carry your cross and deny yourself', how do you make yourself responsible if you  are constantly told that 'You are no longer under obligation to follow any of the Old Testament Laws in moral sense'. That is the reason Joseph Prince is dangerous.   Now most of these verses Joseph Prince and others quote are related to 'Justification' , we are not justified by Obeying the Law, and even in Galatians where Paul is refuting Judaizers(Those who taught that Believers need to follow Old Testament mosaic ceremonial requirement like circumcision to be born again).  Those were false teachers in Paul's time who wanted to make 'circumcision' as a foundation for Justification along with Christ, Paul refuted them sternly. Paul says in Gal 2:10 , 'For all who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse'. To say that 'we are not under the Law' never means, 'we are not under the Law as a whole of the OT' . If that is the case, than why are we still reading the Old Testament, there is an important distinction that needs to be made which Laws are still obligatory for Christians and which are not. For that matter, Are Christians under the Old testament and have any ceremonial torah requirements? Answer is No. Now, this does not mean the Old Testament law is irrelevant today. Many of the commands in the Old Testament law fall into the categories of “loving God” and “loving your neighbor.”   Some People even rule out 10 commandments by saying, we are not under any requirement of the Lord. But, The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Question that becomes, if these 10 commandments and many other commandments are repeated in the New testament, which and which should we consider still as obligatory and which Laws are not obligatory. Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshiping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them.  But, is 'Do not murder obligatory'? The answer obviously is Yes, if not, how are we still accountable for that sin in the New testament, if murder was not according to Moral Law, how are we still doing 'sin' if we commit murder? This question can not be answered unless we understand some of the moral requirements in the New Testament still binding for Christians.

1] Let us see when and where New testament repeats Old testament Laws :     Paul references the law a number of times in his epistles. Sometimes, he is explicit in reciting some of the commandments, as he does in Romans 13:9. Other times, he references them implicitly, like in 1 Timothy 1:8–10: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers [5th and 6th commandments], for murderers [6th commandment] and immoral men and homosexuals [7th commandment] and kidnappers [8th commandment] and liars and perjurers [9th commandment], and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”   

•  Matthew 5:18-19  - Jesus requires allegiance to the Law and is not exempt from it. Jesus words, 'Whoever relaxes' gives us the idea that we are not to feel relaxed from 'these commandments'. Otherwise we will be called 'least' in the Kingdom of heaven.

•  Matt 5: 21-22- Uses Exo 20:13, Deut 5:17 in obligatory sense.

• James 2:8-9 'Written to believers' and says, if you are committing Partiality, 'You are convicted by the Law as transgressors', how are we convicted unless that Law was still binding? That particular Law is taken from Deut. 1:17; 16:19, which says, 'You shall not show partiality in judgment' , this is essentially part of Mosaic Law & Torah. But, why does James still enforce that Law in New Testament Church believers? That question is answered in the second point. 

• 1 Co 9:9 Paul still applied Old Testament Law Deut 25:4, Why Did Paul apply if it was not binding? 

• Acts 23:5 - Paul Applies Old Testament law Ex 22:28 and causes himself to come again under the requirement of Moral law of Old Testament. Some say, Paul voluntarily brought himself under OT law i.e. circumcision , so this point is voluntary, that point is true in some cases, where Paul specifically allows 'ceremonial law system for his conduct' but this is not true in 'moral application of the Law' since Paul at various other places applies 'moral law as obligatory sense' , especially places where He doesn't require to win Jews and he is giving common teaching to the Churches (1 Cor) he extensively uses OT moral law for obligatory behaviour of NT believers throughout all the Churches. 

• 1 John 3:4 ,Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. (Lawlessness : 'anomos', but root Greek word is 'nomos' which includes Law in General both OT and NT commands) , Strong's Concordance even includes,  of the Mosaic law; of the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament scriptures in general. If Law was altogether irrelevant, why Does John refer to the whole Law of the Scriptures? This tells us that some laws in the Old Testament are still relevant. The reason I say some is because we will see distinction while some other laws are told to be no more relevant and at times opposed by Paul and other apostles.

2] Difference between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law and Civil law: Modern Protestants are divided over the applicability of Law in the Church age, and this is because we often don't understand even though whole Law is unit and breaking one law is to break every law, but still there is continuity of some Laws in the New Testament and some laws are said to be 'abolished'. In fact many New testament writers upfront argue against certain old testament laws, but demand certain other laws to be obeyed. So we must understand there is something in the NT no longer necessary and something which is still necessary. Moral Law - No where in scripture does the Bible ever mention these are moral laws and these are not, Old Testament Law is one unit. Yet historical categories defined from the time of early ages are quite helpful. The moral laws, or mishpatim(Hebrew), relate to justice and judgment and are often translated as "ordinances." In more basic language, Moral laws are those which are connected to 'Moral Behaviour' or 'Spiritual conduct with God and men' in the Old Testament. The moral law is directly applicable to both the Christian and the non-Christian today. The explanation sometimes given is this: The moral law, being based on the character of God that does not change, remains forever applicable. i.e. Thou shall not have any other gods beside me, Thou shalt not kill, these Laws are clearly 'Binding' in the New Testament since New Testament repeats same word to word 9 of these 10 commandements and even elevates upon it. If 10 commandments are no longer 'obligatory' or 'binding' in NT, then there is no commitment required for 'worshiping only one God', people can have idols and there is no sin in 'killing someone'. But since these principles never change, they are forever applicable.  - Most amazing change in the New Testament is breaking those moral laws does not require any longer any 'sacrifice' or even capital punishment, because Christ is our sacrifice. But that doesn't mean breaking those moral laws, doesn't bear any punishment from the Lord anymore, Lord punishes and rebukes believers when they break the Law. Hebrew 12:6, For the LORD disciplines those he loves, and he punishes each one he accepts as his child.” [Greek -punishment : mastigoó literally to flog (scourge) a victim] Ceremonial law - The ceremonial laws are called hukkim or chuqqah in Hebrew, which literally means “custom of the nation”; the words are often translated as “statutes.” These laws seem to focus the adherent’s attention on God. They include instructions on regaining right standing with God (e.g., sacrifices and other ceremonies regarding “uncleanness”), remembrances of God’s work in Israel (e.g., feasts and festivals), specific regulations meant to distinguish Israelites from their pagan neighbors (e.g., dietary and clothing restrictions), and signs that point to the coming Messiah (e.g., the Sabbath, circumcision, Passover, and the redemption of the firstborn).    

- Paul straightforward says in Gal 5:2, I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. (Here obviously the issue was on justification and merit in salvation, but Paul seems to be opposing circumcision even in the normal circumstances and denying circumcision after Christ has arrived. He opposes and asks them to stop following that law at all.) These kinds of irrelevance is throughout the New Testament when it comes to ceremonial laws.

- Thus, Christians are not bound by ceremonial law. Since the church is not the nation of Israel, memorial festivals, such as the Feast of Weeks and Passover, do not apply. Galatians 3:23-25 explains that since Jesus has come, Christians are not required to sacrifice or circumcise. There is still debate in Protestant churches over the applicability of the Sabbath. Some say that its inclusion in the Ten Commandments gives it the weight of moral law. Others quote Colossians 2:16-17 and Romans 14:5 to explain that Jesus has fulfilled the Sabbath and become our Sabbath rest. As Romans 14:5 says, "Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind." The applicability of the Old Testament law in the life of a Christian has always related to its usefulness in loving God and others. If someone feels observing the Sabbath aids him in this, he is free to observe it. Civil Law - Sometimes people also consider the third category of the law,  The Westminster Confession adds the category of judicial or civil law. These laws were specifically given for the culture and place of the Israelites and encompass all of the moral law except the Ten Commandments. This includes everything from murder to restitution for a man gored by an ox and the responsibility of the man who dug a pit to rescue his neighbor’s trapped donkey (Exodus 21:12-36). Civil Laws were necessary for Israel, because the nation was, as God had said, “A peculiar treasure unto Me above all people” (Exodus 19:5) Deuteronomy, chapters 18-25, does a summary of the Civil Laws. Since the Jews saw no difference between their God-ordained morality and their cultural responsibilities, this category was given to Israelites to distinguish them from surrounding nations. The traditional Reformed position, including that of John Calvin and the Puritans, which holds that the civil laws have been abrogated though they remain useful as guidance and revelation of God's character.  These include laws prescribing penalties for theft or murder or kidnapping or adultery.  - Civil laws ordinarily go on to include the penalties associated with violation of the law. Hence, "Do not commit murder' ,  is moral law, but making premeditated murder punishable by death while making unintentional manslaughter punishable by confinement to a city of refuge until the death of the high priest represents civil law. According to the Westminster Confession, civil laws are not directly applicable to the Church.  Contrary to theonomy's approach to the civil law, the New Testament does not indicate that the penalties in Mosaic laws are eternally abiding. Instead, the New Testament applies the principle of the law of government to the Church apart from the original sanctions. - --- - ---- But some say, this distinction is impossible because sometimes there are ceremonial elements among moral laws, moral elements among civil laws, and ceremonial elements among civil laws. Thus, the categories moral, civil, and ceremonial are not strictly distinct. David Dorsey asks the question, "Which of the 613 laws is not moral?"'  The obvious answer is that they were all moral, and for an Israelite to disobey any of them would have been immoral. ( David A. Dorsey, The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise, Pg. 34. J. EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL Soc'Y 321, 330 (1991). But in New Testament we can differentiate between which was moral and which was ceremonial and which was particularly civic in a sense judicial law enforcement laws. So I consider historical categorization of these three categories still helpful to define which is which in the application of the Law. As mentioned Some say, well "the Bible never defines which one is moral law and which ones are ceremonial law'. But, We are not to say these categories are altogether unbiblical because the New Testament affirms indirectly the differentiation of these categories, and  catechetical categories can be helpful in understanding applicability in general.  Let us understand how! The threefold division of the law by JONATHAN F. BAYES gives some helpful insights,

• In Old Testament there is a hint of priority between Ceremonial law and moral requirements,  Hosea 6:6, where God protests: I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. We see that the Lord is giving priority to one thing over another. But this thing becomes evident in NT emphatically.

• When we turn to the New Testament we discover that the same distinctions continue. 1 Corinthians 7:19: Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Jews would feel this is a self-contradictory statement. In this instance , Evidently Paul could discern distinctions within God’s law which set aside one law as applicable to all Christians, while other laws/commands were still relevant. Both laws are important for Old Testament Jews but Paul sets aside one law and puts obligation on another law. The question is which law is set aside ? Answer is circumcision -which was a ceremonial requirement. But than which law is required when Paul says, 'but keeping commandments of God is what matters'? Answer is found in 1 Co 9:9 Paul still applied the moral part of OT Law Deut 25:4, and makes the moral point that a worker must be allowed to earn the fruit of his own labor likewise ministers. 

• This is tantamount to the division between the moral and the ceremonial law. Only if we divide the whole Law into category then only this verse makes sense. Similarly, in Romans 2:25-27 the apostle repeatedly contrasts circumcision and law, even though to the Jew “circumcision was not something other than law-keeping; on the contrary, it was the most fundamental part of the covenant and its law”. However, Paul is well aware that there are distinctions to be made within the law of God.

• Jesus in Matthew 5:21-48 , Christ uses all the moral laws of Mosaic law and applies that, if we say that '10 commandments' as a whole is no more relevant, why did Jesus even upgrade the standard on every moral law in this chapter? Jesus could have said, now the Old Testament doesn't matter because I have come and you are under New Testament so stop reading Old Testament, instead he elevated the standards of the Law to the new 'Moral Degree', but Jesus never elevated the ceremonial part of the law. That tells us, Jesus applied some of the Law but didn't apply another part of the Law. 

•  Jesus didn't raise the standard of 'ceremonial requirement' in Mark 7:2, when disciples failed to follow the Jewish ritual of hand washing before eating. 
  

• Jesus didn't break any ceremonial laws but Jesus also never asked his disciples to teach others about 'circumcision' which was an essential part of Mosaic law, but Jesus taught moral laws of OT and elevated them.  

3] Which Laws apply to us today? - We can never say Old Testament laws are irrelevant as a whole, that is a direct contradiction to 2 Tim 3:16-17, All Scripture is profitable for teaching, reproof and correction. If Old Testament laws which are most correcting and reproofing are no more relevant or binding, how does it fit into 'ALL Scripture'?   -  Another problem is Jesus' statement that he "did not come to abolish the law . . but to fulfill. (Matt 5:17), so definitely OT law is not abrogated or ended but which applies is big question.  - Alexander Campbell states about Law that, "It was given to the Jewish nation, and to none else.'  So accordingly, this approach says that the only Old Testament laws that apply today are the ones repeated by the New Testament. ( Alexander Campbell, The Sermon on the Law, in HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS ADVOCATING CHRISTIAN UNION 238 (Charles A. Young ed., 1904). According to him, after American Freedom from Britishers,  the British laws remained valid if and only if they were reaffirmed by the United States.Therefore, Mosaic laws remain valid only insofar as they are reaffirmed under the new covenant. Therefore 'Sabbath and Tithing are abrogated in strict sense otherwise we would be still following sabbath on saturday, and give actual 10th of everything including our food-grains in the Churches. Or still we would be prohibited to wear cloths woven of two materials (lev 19:19), that would prohibit us wearing anything made of polyester. That would abolish laws related to your hair cutting, beard shave off by Pastors. We are no longer under restriction to food laws and clothing laws i.e. Do not wear cross cultural Dresses (Zeph 1:8). Because, These laws are not repeated in the New Testament. - Although Campbell's argument is helpful but it should not be misleading as if all of the Old Testament teaching should be 'replaced' by the New Testament, or that Christians should never pay attention to the Old Testament. In fact New Testament builds upon, elevates and quotes Old Testament laws and therefore it should be said, 'Only those OT Laws which are repeated in the NT, should be applied to the Church' . - It would be mistake to say, Moral law applies but civil law doesn't apply because in that case which moral law applies and which civil (judicial) law applies would be almost next to impossible to decide. So it should be suffice to say, whichever New Testament allows for Church believers should be applied and that includes 10 commandments. This doesn't mean that none of the Civil laws of the Old Testament are not guiding us anymore, Specifically New Testament reaffirms authority of Governmental laws. (Rom 13:1) But NT doesn't repeat civil laws the same way. According to Luther, Christians are bound to obey the civil laws of their own nations and not reinstitute the Mosaic laws. Luther allows that some laws of the Jews might be incorporated into the civil laws of Gentile nations. ( HEINRICH BORNKAMM, LUTHER AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 122 , 1969). Most of the Governmental Judicial law system is designed from Old Testament Civil laws in America and the rest of the World also followed the same pattern after looking at each other's Constitution.  My answer to the above is finally, whatever Old testament Laws are repeated in the New Testament are obligatory and that would suffice to say since 9 of the Ten Commandments verbatim are repeated and so word to word '10 commandments of Old Testament are still active today'. This would conclude that Joseph Prince teaching is in direct contradiction to Bible and therefore dangerously false.  It teaches people to have a second hand impression towards the beauty of the Old Testament Moral teachings. Conclusion So the conclusion is We are not under 'Ceremonial Law system' but we are under 'Moral law' which are repeated still as binding in the New testament. Civil laws related to capital punishment for murder, rape, theft, sorcery , civil code, intermarriage are clearly not repeated in the New Testament. Ceremonial Law system would be like circumcision, food laws, dressing laws, slavery laws, the whole sacrificial system for sins, all the laws related to sacrifice, since Christ is our sacrifice we do not require any such sacrifices not laws related  to them. But remember 'marriage laws are still binding' since Paul reaffirms it regarding divorce and other things, because sexual immorality comes under 'moral obligation'. So we should never disregard the Old Testament as if second handed, expired scripture over and above the New Testament for 'All' Scripture is Inspired.