Dr. Michael Brown has used what was left of his credibility to prop up yet another ravenous wolf; Joseph Prince.

::::::::

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. -- Galatians 1: 8-9 (ESV)

Dr. Michael Brown has proven again that there is not a ravenous wolf alive that he cannot compromise with. No one is worthy of the rebuke that Titus 1:9 commands he give to false teachers. No one. We saw the groundwork for this awhile back when he appeared for an entire week on the Benny Hinn television program. At that time, I spoke with Dr. Brown on his radio program about the mistake of lending his own credibility to someone so obviously heretical like Benny Hinn but he shrugged it off. He pretended that the heresies of Mr. Hinn were a foreign topic to him and that he was just being a good Christian brother and trying to find common ground. Such has been the consistent theme and defense Brown offers up whenever he dances with wolves. We saw this recently when he did a softball interview with Mega-Heretic Bill Johnson. Beloved these should be low hanging fruit to someone with discernment. Hinn pretends to knock down swaths of people with his jacket for heaven's sake and Bill Johnson runs a school to teach people the gifts of the Spirit, which is utter blasphemy. Johnson has perpetrated false signs and lying wonders as well, such as gold dust, gem stones, angel feathers and glory clouds. His theology is somewhere between sloppy agape love and the experiential Christianity that downplays Scripture in the lives of believers. Hinn once prophesied in 1990 that Fidel Castro was going to die at some point in that decade. Despite giving himself an absurd ten year window, he still missed it by 15 years! Just when you thought Dr. Brown could not go any lower however, along comes Joseph Prince.

The ironic thing is I remember when I was on his program I asked Dr. Brown if he felt Prince was a false teacher since Brown had written an entire book against the hyper-grace false gospel which Prince preaches. He referred to Prince as a "brother in Christ who has helped many with his gospel of grace but has some holes in his theology." Wow, the disconnect is stunning. Now, I will admit that Joseph Prince is far less easy to discern because so much of what he says sounds right. The problem is the parts that are wrong are really wrong and consign untold thousands of his followers to hell. Yes, that is right. I know we do not talk much about heaven and hell anymore but they are real and there are consequences for believing a false gospel or following a false jesus. Well, false gospels do not get more dangerous than the one Prince sells every week.

Joseph Prince actually claims that God gave him his "gospel of grace" even though our key verses make it very plain that he should be accursed! This is the same direct revelation card that Prince plays every time he preaches. He acts as if he has a bat phone to the throne room of God and each week God gives him a download for his sermon. The problem is he twists the Word of God so much that if God were actually talking to him, He would be rebuking him. Here are his actual words about how he first received this false gospel of grace:

"I distinctly heard the voice of the Lord on the inside. It wasn't a witness of the Spirit. It was a voice, and I heard God say this clearly to me: 'Son, you are not preaching grace.' I said, 'What do you mean Lord?' 'Every time you preach grace, you preach it with a mixture of law. You attempt to balance grace with the law like many other preachers, and the moment you balance grace, you neutralize it. You cannot put new wine into old wineskins. You cannot put grace and law together. He went on to say, 'Son, a lot of preachers are not preaching grace the way Apostle Paul preached grace.'" -- Destined to Reign

The Bible teaches us that the emissaries of Satan disguise themselves as angels of light to deceive. Assuming Prince is not delusional or outright lying, one must conclude that this conversation he had occurred with a demon and he could not tell the difference. How can we be sure? Two reasons. First is the unlikely nature of having this coffee shop conversation with Almighty God. Can God have such a conversation? Sure; but exactly how many times in 6000 years has He? More importantly however, the conversation is debunked by the Word of God and He would never contradict His own Word -- as the Bible teaches us. It is erroneous and silly to think that grace has to be separated from the law. The Bible makes it very clear. The law serves a purpose. It makes us aware of our sin. You cannot get to grace without the law. As for the Apostle Paul, he always taught both, side by side. In fact, in the epistles from Paul, he used the word "law" 148 times in 108 distinct verses. Conversely, "grace" was used 99 times in 92 distinct verses. Even in the entire New Testament, law appears 223 times to only 131 times for grace. This is not to downplay the enormous grace of God but to realize that it was not God who spoke this falseness to Joseph Prince.

Yet there was Dr. Brown in Singapore spending over two hours mending fences with a raving heretic. Finding any sliver of reason he could to excuse the inexcusable. It all sounds very pious. It all sounds very reasonable. Most heresies are not as obvious as Bill Johnson or Benny Hinn beloved. Some require advanced Berean-ship. It is obvious that when Brown approached this encounter, he did so to validate Prince not to find the truth. Let us reason together beloved and review this new article from Dr. Brown, supporting one of the most dangerous heretics on the planet.

"Without doubt, the points on which we agreed far outnumbered and outweighed those on which we differed." -- Dr. Michael Brown

This is the bulk of the article's structure. Brown outlines all of the points of agreement he has with Joseph Prince. To which I say who cares? The issue is not the areas of agreement beloved but the areas of disagreement. Agreeing on 75% of doctrine still leaves 25% poison. Rat poison only contains 2% actual poison but it still kills the rat. Let's quickly review these fine points of theological agreement:

1) It's all about Jesus. -- well hallelujah and call me Moses. What do you expect Dr. Brown? Do you expect heretics to publicly denounce Jesus? Or do you expect a more subtle approach where they publicly say it is all about Jesus only to not adhere to His Word or teachings? That is what the Bible means when it says denying Christ. No one walks into a church with a flashing "false teacher" sign around their neck. The real question is what Jesus are you preaching? What Jesus are you leading people to? The Bible says that you can believe in vain. That people will fall for false Christs. Let me tell you Dr. Brown about the jesus Joseph Prince preaches. He has preached that repentance simply means "consenting to be loved." That he does not understand why there was rejoicing in heaven after the one sheep was found by Jesus in the Parable of the 99 and 1 because "the sheep never repented" -- he just let Jesus put him on His shoulders. Is this a point of agreement Dr. Brown? It was all about Jesus for Joseph Smith and Mormonism too even though he thought Jesus and Satan were brothers. Even Islam believes in Jesus but considers Him a prophet. So while this first point of agreement was designed to create a certain air of piety, it really just brings into focus why we need to be very careful with using trite Christianisms to excuse false doctrine. People have killed in the name of Jesus and said it was all about Him. Their actions and beliefs however tell a different story. The same goes for Joseph Prince.

2) The second shared belief is that many if not most believers struggle with guilty consciences and fail to realize what God has done for them. I wholeheartedly agree but the solution is not to eliminate the law! We cannot fathom being saved until we know why we need to be saved. The true culprits are the false gospels and christs being offered up by the Seeker Friendly Industrial Complex and the purpose Driven Church theories of growth. They have stripped out any discussion of sin and the need to repent. As we just saw, even Prince redefined repentance as this sloppy agape love that is unbiblical. Jesus is presented as a buddy and pal. A wingman and a friend. The problem is He is Lord and Savior or He is not your friend. The ironic thing is Prince speaks about the Lordship of Christ but he preaches the opposite. On this point Dr. Brown, Joseph Prince has said that God is NEVER angry with us. Is this a point of agreement you have with him? Are you aware that he once preached that the flood was an act of God's love and not His wrath? Seriously. Prince taught that Noah was the last pure bred man on earth. The last man not corrupted by the seed of the Nephilim and thus the flood was to preserve the human race because we are so special and God loves us so much. Do you agree with such obviously pandering garbage? Or are you prepared to call what is false -- false. Beloved this point of agreement is often used by hyper grace adherents to defend their position. No one is arguing against preaching about the grace of God. Dr. Brown should know better.

3) Thirdly, Brown claims they agree that God calls us to holiness, sin is terribly destructive, and true grace is manifest in a holy life. This is where Prince gets very slippery. He openly says that grace is not a license to sin. The problem is that the bulk of his teaching encourages sin so it is a moot point. His teachings here also seem muddied:

"Genuine grace teaches that believers in Christ are called to live holy, blameless and above reproach. It teaches that sin always produces destructive consequences and it is only through the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that one can be set free from the dominion of sin." -- Joseph Prince

This is exactly why Prince is so difficult to discern. This sounds so right doesn't it? But is it really? Does grace actually teach these things? I don't think so beloved. In fact, true grace teaches us that we cannot live holy, blameless, and above reproach. We know that because of the law. The Gospel says Jesus took our place. He lived blameless, holy and above reproach -- not us. True grace points us to what Jesus did, not what we should be doing. We strive to be like Christ knowing that all fall short of His glory but that is again pointing towards the word Prince considers anathema -- repentance. Once you have dumbed down repentance to consenting to be loved it is no wonder the rest of the ensuing theology is off. Prince asks how we know then when someone is truly living under grace and his own answer is that we look at their lives. Huh? Once again when you ruin the doctrine of repentance and turn grace into a license to sin, you have essentially taught a doctrine of good works. Realize that is exactly what Joseph Prince is teaching. If you see someone living a "holy life" then they must be under grace and if you see someone who is sinning they must not be. Wow. That is a dangerous concept that strips salvation away from someone if they sin. Paul lamented about why he does what he knows he should not do. Was he not under grace? This is the slippery slope Prince preaches on.

4) The fourth area of agreement is on progressive sanctification. While it is good that there are genuine areas of his theology that are accurate it baffles me that someone as learned as Dr. Brown would focus on the obvious and ignore the sharp contrasts with the Bible. For instance Dr. Brown, are you aware that Joseph Prince once preached on what he called the "Benjamin Generation?" That these people would be the last generation before the rapture? That they would be given five times as much "stuff" as well as be able to move within five different "anointings" because Joseph gave Benjamin five time as much as his other brothers. You know; the ones that had sold him into slavery to begin with. Oh and guess who this generation is Dr. Brown? Anyone who follows Joseph Prince. How fortuitous.

5) The fifth area of agreement is stated to be that they both agree the Lord corrects us and even disciplines us. Sorry Dr. Brown but that is simply untrue. Joseph Prince is on record multiple times preaching that God is never angry and never punishes His children. That all future sins are magically erased and there is no need to repent at all. Brown is so blinded by his honest desire to sing Kumbaya that he keeps missing what is right in front of him:

"Pastor Prince believes the primary role of the Holy Spirit is to remind us we are the righteousness of God in Christ"I believe His primary role when we sin is to lovingly reprove or correct us. Obviously these two emphases go hand in hand." -- Dr. Michael Brown

No Dr. Brown. Not only is that not obvious but it is not true. You need to understand what you are standing in agreement with here. Joseph Prince teaches that the Holy Spirit NEVER convicts us of sin. EVER. This is how his theology is built. This is not a point of agreement it is a massive chasm of disagreement and one that should help you conclude that Prince is not preaching the real Gospel of Jesus Christ.

6) This is listed as agreement that the Law is glorious, holy and beautiful. That when people are under grace, not only do they fulfill the letter of the law, but they also exceed it or go the extra mile." Say what? Perhaps Brown has not properly explained this because I find it hard to believe he would agree with this belief. Again this is the usurpation of God by man. Jesus lived the perfect life, not us. He was sinless not us. His blood covers us on the Day of Judgment from being found guilty under the law. It does not change us into spiritual supermen and women now. Is the argument from Dr. Brown that people under grace exceed the letter of the law or go the extra mile to do so? Seriously? If the argument is that Christ exceeded it then that would be a point of agreement and we should be talking about Him. Instead, Prince and Brown have us talking about us. That is a demonstrable difference.

7 and 8) The final two areas of agreement are that we deny universalism and commitment to the local church and its authority. While in general these are good things, just a couple of points. While Prince certainly does not teach universalism, where everyone goes to heaven, it is disturbing that he essentially has taught that his Benjamin Generation followers are the only ones who will get raptured. This form of exclusivism is just as dangerous. As for the church, the issue is not authority, which is often abused within the modern church system but rather correct doctrine. The Bible teaches us that it is false doctrines, such as what Prince teaches that actually divide the church. It is great that you agree the church is important but the vast majority of the church are being led down the broad path that leadeth to destruction.

In closing, for Dr. Brown I would ask how he justifies the fact that Prince teaches that we no longer need to ask God for forgiveness because He has already forgiven us. I ask this because it seems Brown glossed right over it and it highlights the absurdity of this article he has written defending Prince:

"Our principle area of disagreement remains his teaching that the moment we are saved, our future sins are already pronounced forgiven. But to repeat, our areas of strong and vibrant agreement are much greater than our areas of disagreement and I want to shout out those areas of agreement to the world." -- Dr. Michael Brown

Dr. Michael Brown is a learned scholar and theologian. I feel badly for how far he has fallen. I feel badly that he has allowed his role as a radio show host to lead him to worship this country and politics instead of the Gospel. More disturbing than that however is his insistent penchant for coddling and defending outright wolves. I used to say that he had a "blind spot" when it came to Charismania but it seems that is spreading and blinding him completely. How else do we explain this article? Dr. Brown wrote an entire book that speaks against the very teachings Prince espouses yet now he wants to shout out where he agrees with him? That makes zero sense from a discernment standpoint. The Bible makes it plain we are to unify behind doctrine. Now, I agree we can disagree about minutia or non-salvation issues but that is not what we have here. Joseph Prince preaches a false gospel and a different christ. Additionally, he routinely claims to have full conversations with God where God contradicts His own Word. He also butchers the living Word to try and get it to agree with his blatantly false theology. Suddenly repenting is just consenting to be loved and the flood that wiped out the entire earth was not an act of wrath.

Bill Johnson, Benny Hinn, and now Joseph Prince. When Simon the Sorcerer revealed his heart Peter rebuked him harshly. Dr. Michael Brown would have invited him on his radio show to explain himself, did an article for Charisma News about how misunderstood Simon is, and shout for all to hear that they both believe in progressive sanctification, they both reject universalism, and how it's all about Jesus. So he practices sorcery and is only in it for the money! The things we agree on so outnumber the things we disagree about! When it comes to doctrine, that's what is really important.

Says no biblical text anywhere.

Reverend Anthony Wade -- January 28, 2017

Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.