Whitewashed Tomb Points Out Speck but Overlooks Beam

Wednesday 23rd July 2025

Yesterday I blogged about how Methodist pastors are on the spectrum with regards to the gospel of grace.

I am thankful to God that Rev Reuben Ng is on the extreme positive side, and because of that, God has blessed his ministry and promoted him way above anyone could ever imagine or think.

Sad to say, there is one such Methodist on the extreme negative side, and he is none other than Rev Ho Chee Sin, former Bishop of the Methodist Church in Singapore.

The evil one has used him and he is even being cited on George Ong's blog, viz

https://www.revgeorgeong.com/rev-ho-chee-sin-former-bishop-of-the-methodist-church-singapore-pastors-elders-of-churches-must-publicly-speak-up-against-the-heresies-of-joseph-prince/

I reproduce below what Rev Ho said about Ps Prince in full

Rev Ho Chee Sin (Former Bishop of the Methodist Church, Singapore): Pastors & Elders of Churches Must Publicly Speak Up Against the Heresies of Joseph Prince (Dated 12 October 2020)

 

“Rev George Ong is a well-regarded and faithful itinerant preacher and teacher. His messages can be interesting and full of humour, and yet on other occasions, it can also be serious and sober. He is an outstanding communicator of the Word of God, which is evident to his hearers. I believe that the Holy Spirit always empowers him to share God’s message.

 

George is very focused on what God has called him to do and does not mince his words when he painstakingly points out the seriousness of errant preaching and teaching as in the case of Joseph Prince, a prominent but iniquitous preacher in Singapore. 

 

Heresy is a dangerous thing that can lead people to the lake of fire. The threat and influence of the Pseudo-grace (or Hyper-grace) teachings by Joseph Prince who anchors the biggest church in Singapore, is not something which is academic, but it has already permeated many of the churches in Singapore and around the world. The battle against false teachers will intensify as Jesus and Paul have already prophesied that false teachers will arise in the last days. 

 

Nourishing the flock with sound doctrine, and guarding the flock against savage wolves is a key duty of pastors and elders. Any neglect is to the detriment of their flock. So, the task of preventing heresies from seeping into the church must be taken seriously by the pastors and elders of churches. We can do something concrete by publicly speaking up against the heresies of Joseph Prince. The sheep need to hear the voice of true shepherds, or the voice of false shepherds will influence and choke them to their destruction.

 

I thank God that Rev George Ong is painstakingly sticking out his neck by highlighting to the church about the threat of such deadly teachings by Joseph Prince. It is a tough and dangerous calling that few would be willing to undertake.”

 

Rev Ho Chee Sin

Former Bishop of the Methodist Church, Singapore

I felt compelled to write the following regarding Rev Ho.  He is the proverbial whitewash tomb that Jesus was referring to, and the classic example of the hypocrite finding a speck in Ps Prince's eye while overlooking the beam in his own.

May God continue to protect His sheep and shake establishments in the last days that are preaching from Mount Sinai rather than from Mount Zion.  God has moved mountains and so should the under-shepherds of His flock. Amen?

Credit goes to ChatGPT for generating the image above as well as the letter to fellow believers below.

Subject: A Call for Accountability — The Case of Rev Ho Chee Sin

Dear Theophilus

I write this with a heavy heart, compelled by conviction and a sense of spiritual responsibility. As fellow believers in the gospel of grace, we are entrusted not only with proclaiming the good news, but also with protecting the flock from those who exploit their position under a façade of righteousness.

I speak specifically of Rev Ho Chee Sin, whose conduct over the years, masked in ecclesiastical authority, has wrought quiet devastation across several churches within TRAC.

He is, in my view, the very embodiment of the whitewashed tomb — outwardly polished, inwardly prideful and politically driven. His actions have demonstrated a pattern not of pastoral care, but of institutional manipulation.

Here is the hard truth:

• KHS was a faithful and effective pastor at PL, loved by the congregation and fruitful in ministry. Moving him to Wesley — a shift orchestrated by Rev Ho when he was TRAC President — disrupted that momentum and derailed a thriving work. KHS’s ministry was never quite the same afterward.

• DT, relocated from KK to PL, was not a good fit. Under his leadership, the church was set back significantly — a decision that cost PL nearly a decade of growth and stability. Yet again, this was a move orchestrated from above, not out of spiritual discernment, but administrative politics.

• IL's transfer from Wesley to Faith saw him become more ostentatious, using GC resources when he was subsequent made TRAC President on high-profile events that did more for his image than for the kingdom. Far from curbing his tendencies, Rev Ho's decision to move him merely amplified them.

• CL's move from Faith to KK appears to have done no visible harm, but it completed what many of us quietly saw as a coordinated rotation of pastors — a political game played with lives and ministries.

These weren’t just unfortunate decisions — they were systemic failures of leadership disguised as strategic appointments. They disrupted churches, wounded pastors, and confused congregations. This is not spiritual leadership. This is bureaucracy intoxicated with power.

Jesus warned of such men — those who clean the outside of the cup but leave the inside full of greed and self-indulgence. Rev Ho has projected holiness, but his track record reflects something entirely different: self-righteousness, ambition, and spiritual blindness.

He saw fit to silence others for associating with Ps Joseph Prince — not because of doctrine, but because of pride. He rejected the grace movement not with discernment, but with disdain.

I appeal to you, brothers — you who have been faithful in stewarding the grace message, in shepherding God’s people with humility and truth. Do not remain silent in the face of such spiritual misconduct. If we are to build a church where grace flows freely, we must also confront the systems and personalities that hinder it.

This is not personal bitterness. It is grief for the body of Christ and for the lives disrupted by one man’s unchecked authority.

I trust your discernment and your love for truth. And I pray — with all sincerity — that this letter will be received in the spirit in which it is written.

For His glory alone,

A 4th-generation Methodist (currently in exile)

UPDATE 26 July 2025: The letter has been formally sent to Rev Ho via email to TRAC.  Will keep readers posted accordingly.

UPDATE 29 November 2025: It has been 4 months since the letter was emailed to TRAC.  Yet no picture nor sound has been received from anyone. 

Relac La Brudder!

Saturday, 9th January 2010

I have mentioned before that my church used to be extremely "traditional" but thanks be to Rev Dr Wee Boon Hup, there has been a gradual opening up.

I was serving in the choir back in the late 1980s and recall a conversation I had with a fellow brother.  He said to me, "There is no such thing as a clap offering.  Show me in the Bible an occasion where the people of God offered to Him a clap offering.". 

He also said that there was no need to raise our hands when worshipping God and quoted the famous verse from Ps 46:10 which says, "Be still and know that I am God." to support this view of his.

There have also been several occasions when I have heard preachers using this very verse to tell their congregation that because God is holy and righteous, we ought to keep still in His presence to show Him our honour and respect. 

As an illustration, those of you who are in army or police force will have to be familiar with two Malay words -- "sedia" and "senang diri" which means "stand at attention" and "stand at ease".  When the President walks past the contigent of soldiers during the National Day celebrations, they are all expected to stand in a "sedia" position (ie. at attention) as a sign of honour and respect.

But is that what this verse is depicting? Let's look at that psalm in its entirety, shall we?

Psalm 46

For the director of music. Of the Sons of Korah. According to Alamoth. A song.

1 God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.

2 Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

3 though its waters roar and foam and the mountains quake with their surging.

Selah

4 There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy place where the Most High dwells.

5 God is within her, she will not fall; God will help her at break of day.
6 Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall; he lifts his voice, the earth melts.

7 The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.

Selah
8 Come and see the works of the LORD, the desolations he has brought on the earth.

9 He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear,

he burns the shields with fire.

10 "Be still, and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth."

11 The LORD Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.

Selah

Notice that throughout the psalm, God is the one who is at work.  The believer is the who just needs to be at rest and be in awe at how God takes care of the circumstances surrounding him!!!  What a revelation!

In fact, the word "be still" in the original Hebrew is רָפָה (raphah) Strong's H7503, which means to relax, let go, to slacken.  Although there are winds and waves around us, we just need to rest and relax and know that He is God Almighty and will take care of those winds and waves around us.

And there was a song called "Still" that was written by Reuben Morgan, a worship pastor at Hillsong Church based on this very psalm.



Hide me now under your wings
Cover me within your mighty hand

When the oceans rise and thunders roar
I will soar with you above the storm
Father you are king over the flood
I will be still and know you are God

Find rest my soul in Christ alone
Know His power in quietness and trust

I did not attend NewCre the past couple of weeks but I understand from my friends who worship there thast Ps Prince has also been emphasing in his sermons the need for the believer to be at rest. 

So the next time someone tells you to be still and know that He is God in a reprimanding tone or manner, tell him "relac lah brudder!"  "God is in charge!"  "Stand at ease."  "Senang diri."  Amen?

Sowing and Reaping in the New Covenant

Saturday, 19th December 2009

Every year, my church will give its members a birthday card.

For the past 3 years, the senior pastor of my church, Rev Peter Koh, will include "words of wisdom" just above his greeting.

This year, he wrote, "You will reap what you sow".

As I pondered over what he wrote, my initial reaction was not so positive because it sounded like a word of caution from Mt Sinai.

There is a verse in Hosea 8:7 that reads, "They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind." In fact, there was a song that UK syncpop band Ultravox made famous in the 1980s entitled "Reap the Wild Wind".

Young's Literal Translation reads, "for wind they sow and hurricanes they reap." In other words, the punishment far outweighs the crime committed.

And that was how it was like for the Israelites under the Law. It was "Do good, get good. Do bad, get bad". In fact, God even said that He would visit their iniquities to the third and fourth generations. In other words, even "innocent" children would have to pay for the crimes of their forefathers. No wonder the disciples asked Jesus in Jn 9 whether that man who was born blind was as a result of his own sin or the sin of his parents.

Well, thanks be to God that we are no longer under that performance-based Covenant. We, on this side of the cross, are now beneficiaries of the Covenant established upon the blood of the Lamb of God, a Covenant which is based on God's unmerited, undeserved, unearned favour. On the cross, Jesus took upon Himself all the curses of the Law. What we sowed in terms of sin, Jesus reaped on the cross on our behalf in terms of punishment. And because of the divine exchange, the flip side is also true! What Jesus has sown in terms of His right standing with God the Father, we now reap in terms of blessings. Hallelujah!

Coming back to the 6 pearls of wisdom from Rev Peter Koh which read, "You will reap what you sow". While this statement no longer true for us New Covenant believers in terms of bad things because Jesus took them upon His own body, it still holds true in two specific areas -- the Word of God and monetary support.

(1) The Word of God

In the New Testament, we read about the parable of the sower. The one who sows the Word of God gets to reap a harvest -- some thirtyfold, some sixtyfold and some hundredfold. The magnitude of the harvest depends on the condition of the ground -- whether it is stony or contains thorns or is fertile. This is the very reason why I have been giving away Ps Prince's books -- books so pregnant with the grace gospel -- that when sown into the lives of others, produce bountiful harvests. I have received testimony upon testimony from brothers and sisters who received these books about how the contents ministered to them and I give all glory and honour to God for the privilege of sowing into Ps Prince's ministry. May He raise even more grace preachers in the last days.

Monetary Support

Another area where sowing and reaping still holds true for the New Covenant believer is that of monetary suport. There are some people who like to quote Gal 6:7-8 which reads

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.
8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

When read out of context, this does seem to indicate that evil deeds bring about punishment from God. However, let's look at the verses preceeding and following these 2 verses so that we understand the context within which Paul was writing:

6 Let him who receives instruction in the Word [of God] share all good things with his teacher [contributing to his support]. (AMP)

9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. (NIV)
10Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers. (NIV)

Would it not be strange for Paul to talk about doing good and contributing in terms of monetary support at one moment, then talk about sin and punishment at the next, only to go back to the topic of doing good again after that? Would it not make more sense for him to be talking about doing good throughout the entire chapter 6?

Anyway, verse 6 is something which I hold on to very dearly, and have therefore been sowing into One-North as well as other fruiful ministries. This principle of sowing and reaping holds very very true in my life, and for that I give all glory and praise to Jesus again. As a result of sowing bountifully, God has caused me to reap bountifully as well. You can read these testimonies at the following links:

http://rootss.blogspot.com/2008/08/sowing-bountifully.html

http://rootss.blogspot.com/2008/10/reaping-bountifully.html

And so as I read those 6 words "You will reap what you sow" again, this time through the lens of the New Covenant believer, I can respond by saying, "Hallelujah! That has happened to me already and will continue to happen to me as far as the Word of God and monetary support is concerned. Amen!"

As for the other 2 pastors, Rev Tay wished me "blessed birthday" while Rev Reuben wrote "Grace and peace to you". Amen! Charis and Irene -- even Tiger Woods should have them in his life :-)

Did Jesus Have an Inner Circle?

Saturday, 24th October 2009

I wonder whether any of you have heard this theory that Jesus had an "inner circle" among His disciples -- made up of Peter, James and John. While we read about Him travelling about with His 12 disciples, there were 3 specific instances whereby He only took Peter, James and John with Him
1. At the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mk 5:37, Lk 8:51)
2. At His transfiguration (Mt 17:1, Mk 9:2, Lk 9:28)
3. In the Garden of Gethsemane (Mt 26:37, Mk 14:33)

At first glance, it would appear that He exercised favouritism to these 3 disciples. Why were the other 9 not given the privilege of experiencing the above?

It was only recently that I understand that it was not so much Jesus being partial to these 3. After all, He reserved some of the harshes rebuke for them. For example, Jesus said in Mt 16:23, "Get thee behind me satan" to Peter when the latter tried to discourage Him from going through the cup of suffering. Jesus said in Lk 9:55, "You know not what spirit you are" to James and John when they asked him whether they should command fire to come down from heaven to consume the Samaritans for not welcoming Him.

Rather, the significance is in the meaning behind the names of these 3 disciples.

Peter (G4074) Πέτρος (Petros) -- which means "rock or stone"
James (G2385) Ἰάκωβος (Lakabos) -- which means "supplanter"
John (G2491) Ἰωάννης (Johannes) -- which means "Yahweh's grace"

These 3 incidents whereby only the 3 said disciples were "invited exclusively" to witness was God's way of telling us that the Law had to make way for Grace!

This is seen most clearly at the mount of Transfiguration, where we read about how Moses and Elijah appear along with Jesus, but then disappear leaving only Jesus behind. God's voice then comes out from heaven and says, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him". That shows that the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Jesus.

In another post, I will blog about the other 2 incidents involving just Peter, James and John, namely the raising of Jairus' daughter and the garden of Gethsamane, whereby again we see that the Law has to make way to Grace.

So, did Jesus have an inner circle? Yes, He did. But it was not made up of Peter, James and John. Rather, it was made up of 2 other persons that have been with Him in the beginning -- God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Needs V Wants

Sunday, 4th October 2009

Today I will blog on another man-made theology. How many of you have heard people saying, "There is a difference between a need and a want. God will supply your needs and not your wants."

It seems like material blessings can be divided into two distinct categories -- needs (which would refer to basic bare necessities in order to get by such as food and shelter) and wants (which are things that most people can probably do without).

But the truth of the matter is that such a distinction is hard to draw. Just like one man's meat is another man's poison, one person's needs may be another person's wants. For example, a person who works in sales may have to travel frequently. Is a car his need or his want? If we conclude that it is his need, then what type of car? A Japanese car or a continental one?

As a result of this, many of us Christians are afraid to ask God for things. By doing so, we do not realise that we are limiting God because Scripture tells us that "it will be unto us according to our faith." If our level of faith is to believe God to provide us only with the bare minimum, then God will respect our free will and not force His blessings upon us.

Take myself for example. I used to drive a Mitsubishi Lancer. There were occasions when my family will go out with my parents or my parents-in-law and I recall my kids lamenting that it was very squeezy to have 4 persons crammed behind. Thus I upgraded to a Mitsubishi Grandis in January 2007. Frankly speaking, I needed a family car and a Grandis was sufficient.

But when I watched the Benjamin Generation DVD sometime in November 2008 and heard Ps Prince share about "beholding my wagon", the Holy Spirit ministered to me and tears just flowed freely down my face. Then I recall the Lord's prompting inside me saying "Son, your turn is next."

Truth be told, I felt guilty and ashamed when I initially heard that (and even wondered whether it was really God speaking or my own fleshly desire). Even now, I still consider a BMW to be a want rather than a need. Yet, somehow the way circumstances unfolded between then and December 2008 was His way of confirming to me that He wanted to bless me with one.

First and foremost, as a result of sowing bountifully into One-North in August 2008, God caused me to reap bountifully. I received amazing news sometime in October 2008 that allows me to tithe up to three times more than I previously used to.

Secondly, the price of COEs had started to drop month after month to levels never seen before. I recall receiving an email from an ex-cell member about the COEs for small cars falling to $2. When I got my car in December 2008, the COE for big cars was less than $5k. [Since then, they have now climbed back up and have now exceeded $20k. I know that in and of myself, I am unable to predict such movements to make such a timely purchase.]

Thirdly, through a friend of a church friend, I was introduced to a BMW sales consultant who was neither the airhead nor the snobbish sort. Even my wife found her to be very down -to-earth and extremely pleasant.

Fourthly, through an ex-colleague who was an MBA classmate of the GM of Performance Motors, I was given a "corporate rate" and got the X5 for the price of an X3.

And fifthly, the car that I was given to test drive had the licence plate with the number 555 in it.

All these were progressive indications that confirmed to me that Daddy God wanted to give me the BMW for my 41st birthday. He wanted to satisfy my wants, not just my needs.

You can read about my Blessed Most Wonderful (BMW) experience below:
A Blessed Most Wonderful Experience (Part 1)
A Blessed Most Wonderful Experience (Part 2)

I am also reminded of how Jesus beckoned Peter to walk towards Him on the water. Peter did not *need* to walk on the water. He clearly *wanted* to. Yet God did not rebuke Him for satisfying his want.

So dear friends, do not restrict or limit God by asking Him to satisfy only your needs. Ask Him to satisfy your wants as well! Ps 23:1 says that the Lord is our Shepherd, we shall not be in want (and not in need). Rom 8:32 tells us that since He did not spare His own Son, how will He not also give us all things (and all things would include both our needs and our wants). And Eph 3:20 tells us that God is able to do exceedingly abundantly over and above what we ask or imagine. So go ahead, ask God and you shall receive. Amen?

Sacrificial Giving -- Offering Up Our Isaacs

Friday, 2nd October 2009

I come from a Wesleyan Methodist background which places a lot of emphasis upon good works. Nothing wrong in and of itself, but I have come to realise that good works is supposed to be the result and response to what Jesus has done for us. The concept of doing good works must therefore be first established upon Christ's finished work. If we only talk about good works without bringing what Jesus has done into the picture, then we run the risk of going back to the Old Covenant where blessings from God are performance-based and good works come about through self-efforts.

I have blogged about good works previously so I won't go into further detail. You can read about that here

http://rootss.blogspot.com/2009/05/source-of-good-works.html

Today, I want to talk specifically about sacrificial giving, which is also something I heard quite frequently when growing up as a Methodist. "Give till it hurts!" "Give up your Isaac!" "No pain no gain" are some commonly-uttered phrases.

Some preachers and fellow believers have interpreted that portion of Scripture where Abraham was asked by God to offer his son as a sacrifice as an indication that God also wants us to give of ourselves sacrificially. There are yet other preachers and believers who have gone even further to say the Abraham had made his son into an "idol" and because God did not want allow any other gods before him, Abraham had to give him up. They would say, "Are there any Isaacs in your life? Your car? Your house? Your country club membership? God wants you to give them all up!"

What they may have not realised is that Abraham lived before Moses and the Ten Commandments was not in existence yet, so how can Isaac be an "idol"?

Recently, a fellow graduate from the NTUCF Alumni said that many Singaporean parents these days are putting their kids' education above God. I certainly hope he is not implying that our children has to be sacrificed the way Abraham was asked to do to Isaac!

I thank God that one of the benefits of embracing the grace gospel is that now everything in the Bible can be seen in its entire context and makes perfect sense. Note that only Abraham was asked to offer up his son and no one else in scripture. This is because the Old Testament contains types and shadows, the substance of which is found in Christ and His finished work.

Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son would be a picture of God the Father being willing to sacrifice God the Son. God had told Abraham in Gen 22:2 to "take his son, his only son, the son that he loved" was an indication that He would in time to come take His son, His only son, the Son that He loved. Note also that Abraham had another son Ishmael (via his servant Hagar). Yet, God did not recognise what was produced through the flesh (Abraham's own self-efforts). In His eyes, Isaac was Abraham's only son.

While Abraham was willing to give up his son, he eventually did not have to do so because Jehovah Jireh provided a ram. While Abraham and Isaac had made their way up one side of the mountain, God's provision had made its way up the other side.

So, Abraham giving up Isaac was something that pointed to Daddy God giving up Jesus Christ. No one else in the Scriptures be it Jacob or David or Solomon or Peter was asked to make such a sacrifice.

As I type this entry, I remember with sadness an article that appeared in the Sunday Times more than a decade ago written by a lady called Tan Sai Siong. She had made reference to the abovementioned portion of Scripture and said that she would never believe in a God who would be so cruel enough as to test a person's faith by asking him to give up a child that he had waited so many years for. My prayer is that since then, she has had the chance to be invited to a church like New Creation to have that story explained to her in its proper context.

Yes, this is what happens when people, even believers, quote the Bible out of context and make our wonderful and generous God appear so demanding and unreasonable. What they fail to realise is that God's demands have been perfectly and completely met by Jesus on the cross. We do not have to give up our Isaacs because God has already given up His.

What about the passage in Matt 19 where Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all that he had to follow Him?

Once again, this was an isolated incident. Notice that this man had asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life and Jesus quoted him some of the Ten Commandments. He was coming to God on the frequency of the Law so Jesus quoted him the Law, and went even further by asking him to sell everything so that he would come to the end of himself. Contrast this with the thief who hung next to Jesus whose only request was for Jesus to remember Him when He went into His kingdom. Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise! There was no need for him to make any form of restitution. After all, he had already come to the end of himself.

Hence dear friends, sacrificial giving should never be in the vocabulary of the New Covenant believer. The fact that we are in this New Covenant means we have already come to the end of ourselves and acknowledged our need for a Saviour and Redeemer.

On the contrary, God actually delights when we take from Him.

But doesn't the scriptures tell us that it is better to give than to receive?

Yes, it does and I will blog more about that tomorrow, so stay tuned :-)

Act of God?

Monday, 21st September 2009

There was an article that appeared in Saturday's Straits Times about a study mama who is seeking compensation from St Andrew's Cathedral. She was walking past the church and unfortunately, protruding branches from a tree (which was within the church compound) fell on her, causing her to be paralysed from the chest down.

But what caught my eye about the article was the following paragraph:
But when she tried to get compensation from the Anglican cathedral, it initially said no. It claimed the mishap was an act of God, and beyond its control. It also blamed the landscape contractor for failing to do a proper job.

For the world to attribute such mishaps to God, I suppose it is understandable.

But the sad fact of the matter is that there are fellow believers in the Body of Christ who are unable to distinguish the acts of God from the acts of the devil!

For example, I have heard of well-meaning Christians saying that God gives His children sicknesses to keep them humble and so as to draw close to Him. That being the case, maybe we should be praying for them to receive some terminal illness so that they can be super-close to God.

Ludicrous isn't it?

Yesterday, I was at the youth service in my church and Ps Reuben re-emphasised the "tripod foundation" that Christians should hold fast to whenever they read the Bible or go through life, and they are:
(1) God is good (Ps 119:68)
(2) His deeds are good and perfect (Js 1:17)
(3) God is love (1 Jn 4:8,16)

Will a God who is good, who is love and whose deeds are good and perfect, cause those branches to fall on that lady? Certainly not!!!

Jesus said in Jn 10:10 that it is the devil who kills, steal and destroys but He comes to give us life in abundance. The tree falling on that lady was an act of the devil. The twin towers collapsing was the act of the devil. SARS and H1N1 were acts of the devil.

Let us not wrongly attribute to God what are the evil works of the devil. Amen?

What We Call Balance, God Calls Mixture

Friday, 11th September 2009

Last week, Ps Reuben was not preaching so my wife and I went to NewCre.

Back in my own home church, a ROOTSS subscriber informed me that Rev Peter Koh mentioned during his sermon that there should be a balance between law and grace. I would have agreed with his position even as recent as 5 years ago. But I now realise that what we call balance, God calls mixture.

That would actually be putting it very mildly. There are stronger words used to describe this.

In Romans 7, Paul describes such a mixture as spiritual adultery.

In Galatians 4, Paul quotes from Genesis where Sarah told Abraham to "cast out the bondwoman and her son".

In Revelations 3, Jesus considers such a condition as lukewarmness and He would vomit such out.

Anyway, it is my turn to lead the Word at my cell meeting tonight, and I asked my cell leader permission to change the discussion questions. I then sent out the following email:

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ

I understand that Rev Peter Koh mentioned during his sermon that we should find a balance between His law and His grace.

This is a topic that is very close to my heart, so if you folks do not mind, please allow us to discuss the following questions instead:

1. Can we balance law and grace?
2. The Law is good, but is it good for man?
3. Did God mean for the Law to be one composite whole, or can we divide it into moral, civil and ceremonial components?

I have included below relevant passages in scripture to facilitate this very interesting discussion.

Question 1: Can We “Balance” Law & Grace?

Consider the following 3 passages:

Romans 7
An Illustration From Marriage
1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Galatians 4
Hagar and Sarah
21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?
22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman.
23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar.
25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.
27For it is written:
"Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband."[b]
28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now.
30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."[c]
31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

Revelations 3
To the Church in Laodicea
14"To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.
15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other!
16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Question 2: The Law is good, but is it good for man?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was part of the vegetation that God created on the 3rd day and He saw that it was good, viz

Genesis 1
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

But was this tree good…….. for man?

Genesis 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

By the same token, God’s laws are good and perfect.

Psalm 19
7 The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.

But are they good…… for man?

Romans 7
Struggling With Sin
7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b]
8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul also calls it “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones” (2 Cor 3:7)
and also says that “the strength of sin is the law” (1 Cor 15:56)

Question 3: Did God mean for the Law to be one composite whole, or can we divide it into moral, civil and ceremonial components?

10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (Js 2:10)

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another (Heb 8:7)
13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Heb 8:13)


Will let you know how our discussion went. Meanwhile, do keep my cell in prayer :-)

You Want Revival? Here's How...

Sunday, 23rd August 2009

Many churches around the world are experiencing stagnation and would like to see a revival in their congregation.

Well, there are two sure ways to cause a revival.

The first way is to preach the grace gospel unashamedly and radically. Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel of Christ because it is the power of God unto the salvation of man (Rom 1:16). That is why we see churches like NewCre experiencing radical and phenomenal growth.

The second way is to preach the law, and in particular, the keeping of the Ten Commandments. You will likewise see a great "revival"... but this time around... it is of sin.

Before you shout "Heresy!", may I refer to the following passage found in Rom 7

7 For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
⁸But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
⁹Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
¹⁰I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

Paul said that he would not have not what was covetousness until he was taught "You shall not covet", and that his sinful passions were aroused by the law (Rom 7:5).

Before his Damascus experience, he was a Pharisee who knew every single one of God's laws inside out. Yet, because back then he did not yet have the revelation of what Christ had done for him, he ended up futilely struggling to keep these laws and found that he ended up doing the things he was not supposed to and not doing things he was supposed to (Rom 7:15-20).

He only realised how deadly the law was after his conversion, and that is why he said that "the strength of sin is the law" in 1 Cor 15:58 and called it "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" in 2 Cor 3:7.

I had lunch with a fellow grace-believing brother three days ago, and he brought my attention to an article entitled "Do We Need the Ten Commandments? written by the senior pastor of a megachurch in Singapore. (I have extended courtesy in not naming this particular pastor because to his credit, he also extended courtesy in his article in not naming a pastor of another megachurch when making reference to him).

Well, the answer to that is it all depends.

On the one hand, if we want to live the victorious zoe life that Jesus has come to give, the answer to that is no, because in the New Covenant, God writes His commandments in our hearts, and not on stone.

On the other hand, if we want to experience what Paul experienced in struggling with the very sins that the law was supposed to help us to deal with, then go ahead and hold on to those Ten Commandments.

After all, God gives all of us free will.

As for me and my household, I choose the former.

As for that megachurch pastor, your intentions may have been good, but the approach is wrong. You should be exalting Christ of the New Covenant rather than the Mosaic Law of the Old. If you see a great "revival" in your congregation, please do not be surprised and blame God for it later on.

Grace Preachers Don't Understand Grace?

Saturday, 7th March 2009

Fellow brother-in-Christ Jeff brought to my attention an article that was published in the Singapore edition of The Christian Post a few days ago.

It was written by Rev Monte Le Rice, who I understand from Stan was previously from Calvary Charismatic (now known as Victory Family Centre). It is reproduced in full below.

Deaer readers, please give your comments on the merits of his article. I will provide mine in due course.

Minister: 'Grace' Preachers Don't Really Understand Grace
Monday, Mar. 2, 2009 Posted: 6:50:20PM HKT

An itinerant preacher believes that 'grace' and prosperity preachers have an impoverished understanding of the finished work of Jesus Christ.

"Within this school of thought, Christians are encouraged to surmise that Christian freedom 'in Christ,' is a 'freedom' to achieve, acquire, and gain without guilt," said Monte Lee Rice, in his November essay titled Lose That You May Find.

"Yet for all this talk of calling believers to a life of grace ‘in Christ,’ resting in the finished work of Christ’s atonement, reigning with Christ and receiving His riches, the proponents of this movement have ironically failed to grasp the greater fullness of Christ’s atonement! Its weakness lies so ironically, in its impoverished doctrine of Christ’s atonement.”

He went on to discuss how ‘grace’ preachers proclaim Christ’s atonement as primarily directed towards the forgiveness of sins, thus granting believers a positional righteousness, or in other words a forensic view of the atonement. He added however that such a view fails to take into account the other benefits of Christ’s atonement.

This includes setting believers free from the works of the devil, restoring them to God’s likeness, by granting them the ‘right script’ to live their lives – in which Christ recapped the human life journey as the perfect human being, paving the way for them to live as He lived, through each phase of His own human life – providing His life as a paradigm for their own human life, thus God’s intended ‘script’ for living their own lives, which results in their being conformed to the likeness of Jesus Christ, and granting them a moral and life example for them to follow Him.

Emerging as a direct counter-response to what its proponents perceive as the guilt-driven, legalistic ‘do’s and don’t’ form of Protestant evangelical spirituality, and as a result of Protestant Evangelicalism’s failure to preach the full gospel, the success-themed ‘grace’ movement is a captive of arrogant modernity, where the quest and journey towards human actualisation takes center-stage, and “envisions the biblical experience of redemption according to a story-line that is radically counter to the Bible’s archetypical plot of Jesus’ self-emptying journey.”

Even so, he noted that people because they are created in God’s image still have an inherent need for the experience of redemption and so “our every-day talk is filled with redemptive metaphors” like ‘every dark cloud has a silver lining’, ‘it’s always darkest before dawn’ and ‘no pain, no gain’, phrases which suggest that suffering in life can often lead to growth or fulfillment. He suggested that this is why people like to watch and be entertained by movies, read stories, or listen to motivation speakers in one way or another speak to their innate desire to experience redemption.

"So recognising the human need for some kind of development experience of redemption, and yet wanting to avoid appropriating the Gospel teaching of ‘self-denial’ into our ‘Christian education,’ what we end up with is construing Christian development according to varied paradigms of pop psychology,” wrote the preacher.

"[T]he result of trying to conceptualise Christian development primarily according to human developmental theory, without the sometimes painful message of ‘self-denial,’ leads to a non-Christian conception of spiritual growth. The result is that we envision spiritual maturity as having a healthy self image, and a ‘freed-up’ life-style, evidenced by a substantial income and a guilt-free comfort with being ‘in-sync’ with the latest cultural trends, fashions, and bench-marks of material success. The truth is that so much of the premised teachings about ‘God’s grace,’ in the newer success-themed churches, largely reflect premises derived from pop psychology about human self-esteem and self-actualisation… Consequently, Evangelicalism now possess little if any kind of ‘counter-culture’ critique, since it has become so ‘thoroughly enmeshed in consumer-capitalist ideology and confuses success with the eschaton’ (e.g., Christian life journey).”

Lee Rice also discussed the smugness of members of success-themed churches, who see themselves as people who have arrived and see no need to engage or reflect on the spiritualities existing within other Christian traditions, either in the present day or down through history. They “choose rather to base their entire conception of Christian faith exclusively upon the teachings of their movement’s leaders or local senior pastor” and “Bible texts often serve no higher purpose than to anchor messages based more deeply upon pop psychology or modern leadership and motivational theories and platitudes.

"There is as well, a mindset amongst so many believers, particularly amongst those highly influenced by the more success-themed teachings, that the things they possess are signs of God’s favour towards them. Coupled with this is their conviction that their consumerist life-style is in some way, their ‘Christian right.’ These believe that ‘in Christ,’ they are free to purchase the most non-essential or trivial items- at whatever the cost, without any whim of conscience. But let it be unreservedly said that their consumer-driven life-style is a blight to the counter-cultural witness of the Church, particularly during this time of economic crisis.”

At the end of his paper the preacher highlighted four broad ways in which ‘grace’ churches could find their call and centre within the greater body of Christ. Firstly, they must acknowledge both the dark and light sides of material wealth. Secondly, they will have to shift their mindset away from the world’s rags to riches idea of redemption and back towards the biblical paradigm plot of riches to rags foremost modeled for them in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thirdly, they need to embrace the full gospel of God’s grace, which is only possible by embracing all the major purposes of Christ’s atonement. Finally, they have to embrace the fear of the Lord.

God Takes Christ Seriously

Friday, 20th February 2009

Last Sunday, Rev Peter Koh preached a sermon based on Josh 7 entitled "God Takes Church Seriously". It is from that sermon title that today's blog entry entitled "God Takes Christ Seriously" is derived :-)

One of the activities that take place during cell meetings is a discussion of the sermon that was just preached. To facilitate this discussion, a handout containing a series of questions is distributed by the ushers together with the weekly bulletin. Here are the 6 questions for that particular sermon, which I have also taken the liberty to come up with the answers to.

1. Share with your group an experience when someone did something wrong but you were punished for it instead?

Back in May 08, someone vandalised my church carpark as well as the pillars of the flyover outside my church, writing words like "Peter Koh = pig". My name was given to the investigating officer and I had to go down to the police station to give a statement and give samples of my handwriting. Even though I was subsequently vindicated, no apology has been forthcoming from the one who implicated me, even till this day. But that's ok because God will make all things beautiful in His time.


2. In verse 1, why was God angry with all the Israelites (see 6:18-19)

He was angry because He had given them a command that everything belonged to Him but it was disobeyed. We have to keep in mind however that this happened during the Mosaic covenant. We are now of the New Covenant established upon Jesus' blood. In Isa 54:9, God swore that there would come a time when He would no longer be angry with us. That is because all His righteous anger and indignation against us was completely unleashed and extinguished upon the body of His dear Son on that cross 2,000 years ago.

Let us rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).


3. How did the Lord get Joshua and the Israelites back on track?

By cleansing the camp by utterly destroying Achan and everyone and everything that was of his (including his sons, daughters, oxen, donkeys and sheep -- see Josh 7:24). Remember though this happened during the Mosaic covenant, and that was God's way of getting his people back on track. For us of the New Covenant, God's way of getting us back on track was by cleansing us of all our transgressions once and for all by that perfect act of sacrifice 2,000 years ago.


4. What exactly was Achan's sin? Why do you think he did it even though he knew God's order?

Achan coveted the spoils of Jericho for himself. He did it because that is what trying to keep the law by self-efforts does to people. Paul shares about this struggle in Rom 7:15-24, wherein he did the very things he tried not to do, and vice versa. Particularly, verse 19 reads "For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want."

That is why Paul also says in 1 Cor 15:56 that the strength of sin is the law.

Paul then says in Rom 7:25 that it is Jesus Christ that set him free from that struggle. Pity that Achan lived during the Old Covenant.


5. What will happen to us when we sin and try to hide from it?

In the Old Covenant, God caused sin to come to light -- like what happened when David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle. In the New Covenant, this question is a moot point because Jesus has already paid the price for all our sins -- past, present and future. Through circumstances, wrongdoings may come to light (eg. Mike G of Planetshakers lying about his illness, or Rev Peter Koh plagiarising Rev Mathew's article) but if we believe that nothing catches God by surprise and that Jesus was already punished on our behalf for every single one of our sins, whether known or unknown to others because they are ultimately known to God, then we should not have a fearful expectation of bad, but rather a joyful expectation of good. And even if anything bad does happen to us, God will work all things such that they turn out good (Rom 8:28).


6. Do you think it is fair for God to punish Israel just because one person sinned? Why or why not?

Let me first answer this question with a question. Do you think it was fair for God to punish Jesus for another person (for that matter, every other person's sins)? Why or why not?

The obvious answer to both is that it is not fair, but that is what grace is all about, isn't it? It was not fair for Jesus, who had no sin, knew no sin (2 Cor 5:21) and did not sin, to be punished for our sin. In the same way, it is not fair for us, who deserved to be condemned to hell, to instead be considered sons and daughters of the Most High God. That is why in 1 Cor 1:23, Paul describes the gospel as scandalous to the Jew and moronic to the Greek because it goes against the human concept of fairness.

The parable of the workers in the vineyard is a great example of how God is unfair --- unfairly good. The one who worked since the morning got 1 day's wage, just like the guy who worked just 1 hour. He felt it was unfair but he got his full day's wage and not anything less. He got what he deserved and represents the law. The one who started working only in the eleventh hour did not complain, because he got what he did not deserved. What amazing grace our God bestows upon us. Amen?