“Destined to Reign” book review by Dr Gordon Wong

“Destined to Reign” book review by Dr Gordon Wong




I came across this review written by Dr Gordon Wong, Old Testament professor with Trinity Theological College. There is wisdom to be gained from reading and reflecting on what he has to say about Joseph Prince’s teaching in his book “Destined to Reign”.

I recently read the book Destined to Reign (2007) by Joseph Prince, the senior pastor of New Creation Church. When I conveyed some of my thoughts on the book, one of my pastoral colleagues thought it would be helpful if I shared them with more Methodists. Let me begin by saying that Pastor Prince’s emphasis on grace has been a great blessing from God to many. My nephew and cousin belong to New Creation church and have grown immensely in their relationship with God. My prayer is that God will use Prince’s gifts of preaching to even more blessed effect as he allows the Holy Spirit to convict him (graciously, as always) of areas that could be improved. I hope my comments below will be helpful towards that end.


1. Prince’s teaching on God’s Grace and Anger


His emphasis on grace has led some to accuse him of giving Christians a licence to sin. He vehemently rejects this criticism (e.g. p. 30) and explains that a person who has properly experienced grace is one who is inspired and empowered to turn away from sin.


What I like: the book’s stress on the power of God’s grace is correct. The grace of God in the Bible is meant to inspire holiness, and not allow sinfulness. The book’s strong emphasis on grace is true to the Bible. Self-condemnation and guilt are real problems that afflict many people today, and the message of God’s grace is truly good news.


What I had reservations about:


In stressing grace, the book appears to suggest that God no longer gets angry with Christians. If this is what it really means to teach, then this is not biblical. On p. 41, read: “We do see God being angry in the Old Testament, and in the book of Revelation, where his anger is toward those who have rejected Jesus. But for you and me, believers in the new covenant, we are not part of the Old Testament and we will never be punished because we have already received Jesus. As believers, God is no longer angry with us because all His anger for our sins fell upon Jesus at the cross.”


I suspect (and hope) that what the book really means is that God’s anger is not the type that takes delight in condemning us and pointing out how horrible we are. Also, I think (and hope) that what the book means to say is that God’s anger and punishment on believers does not result in the loss of eternal salvation. But to say the above is very different from saying that God gets angry only with unbelievers and never with true believers (p. 41), or to insist that “the Holy Spirit never convicts you of sin” (p.134). Does the Bible really say that God never gets angry with believers anymore? In the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), God is presented as getting angry with believers. For example, the letters to the 7 churches (i.e. people who profess to be believers) in Revelation 2-3 include a lot of stinging rebuke and condemnation from Jesus himself, including the use of threats of punishment and judgement. (I find attempts to say that the “churches” in Revelation do not really refer to believers as far-fetched.) God Himself seems to punish two professing believers Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Isn’t this an example of the Holy Spirit, through Peter, convicting Ananias and Sapphira of their sins? Or must we assume the (not so gracious) judgement that Ananias and Sapphira cannot have been true believers?? For argument’s sake, even if they were not true believers, they were certainly in the church assembly. So there is place still for Spirit-inspired preaching for the conviction of sin within church walls. There may be many “believers” like Ananias and Sapphira who need the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and our need for grace. Perhaps the book could have made a clearer distinction between divine anger at Christians that results in the loss of eternal salvation (which is what he is most concerned to speak against) and divine anger at Christians that aims to correct and discipline (which he seems to reject). To be fair, Prince does accept the positive idea of child discipline or training (pp. 65-67), but he rejects any association of this discipline with the words “anger” or “punishment”.


God’s anger was, and can still be an expression of His love and grace, just like a loving mother who sometimes scolds her child. (Prince is, hopefully, only joking when he implies, p.37, that children will become schizophrenic if parents sometimes express happiness and at other times anger!) To say that God will never get angry or punish believers anymore may promote (unwittingly or mistakenly) a distortion of the Bible’s teaching about God’s grace. God’s anger is an expression of His love and grace towards his children. Prince would perhaps do better to speak of righteous anger (Ephesians 4:26) versus unrighteous anger. God never gets (unrighteously) angry with us, but loving grace demands a place for righteous anger as long as His beloved children still need discipline.


2. Prince’s teaching on Law


The book is very strong on rejecting the value of the Law in the OT as being of any positive help for Christians. For example, on p.120 there is a section entitled “The Ten Commandments Kill” and it says that these commandments are “the ministry of death”.


What I like: I think (and hope) that the book is trying to say two biblical things about the Law. Firstly, it may be warning us that the Ten Commandments can be used or preached in a condemning way that destroys the soul of people and makes them cringe in fear or turn away from God as a harsh Master. This is a good biblical warning. Secondly, the book’s description of the Law as a ministry of death rather than life correctly describes and reinforces the biblical view that obedience to the Law cannot lead us to receive salvation. It is correct and very good of Prince to speak against those who are “trying to use the Ten Commandments to remove their sins” (p.124). We are saved by grace, not by obedience to the Ten Commandments or the Law. If these two points represent what Prince teaches on the Law in the Bible, then this is good and biblical.

What I had reservations about: That the Law can be preached and understood in such a way as to promote soul-destroying guilt and deeper condemnation is certainly true. Prince is to be commended for eloquently highlighting this biblical warning about the danger of the Law, and stressing the wonderful grace of God that forgives us all through Christ. But while there are many who need this message of God’s grace-filled forgiveness to save them from their guilt and despair over sin, there are many others who need the message of God’s grace-filled discipline and rebuke to save them from presumption and indifference to sin. Prince’s emphasis on free and full forgiveness is very good at helping the former, but not so good for the latter. Does Prince believe that guilt is the only problem people have because of sin? If so, that would present an incomplete picture. Sin does not only imprison us in guilt; it also lulls us into indifference and presumption. The Bible addresses both these effects of sin. The book appears to suggest that there is no way of preaching the Law in a graceful manner in order to set us free from our sinful indifference and presumption.


Similarly, Prince is correct to stress that the Law cannot save or justify, but his writings give the impression that the Law has no other positive function except to prove that we cannot be saved by it. But the Law in the Bible is also presented as a positive expression of God’s grace in telling us what God desires. But because Prince contrasts Law and Grace in this manner, he gives the impression of implying that the Law has only the negative value of telling people that they cannot be saved by their attempts at obedience to the Law. The Law certainly does perform that valuable function, but it does much more as well. It helps us know what is good in God’s eyes. The book is weak on emphasising the ongoing value of the Law for both Christians and unbelievers.

To be fair to this book, there are certain parts of the Bible that also speak in similarly strong negative tones against the Law (e.g. most of Galatians and parts of the books of Romans and Hebrews). But this negative view is balanced out in other parts of the Bible that are very positive about the Law (e.g. Jesus in Matt 5:19-20; James 1:25; Psalm 119 etc.). In other words, the Law as a means of salvation is spoken of very negatively in the Bible, but the Law as a means of showing us God’s pleasure or desire for our lives is spoken of very positively. The book seems to emphasise only the negative picture of the Law. Doing so would fail to do justice to the biblical balance which speaks also of the ongoing positive value of the Law for Christians. Paul, himself, could sum up the Law very positively as teaching us to love one another (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8,10).


3. Prince’s teaching on Healing


Healing is a big topic in the Bible, and it is not the main theme of Prince’s book. But from the little he says in his final full chapter “Good Things Happen” (pp. 287ff), Prince relates testimonies of people who were healed when they received the grace and forgiveness of God. He also states that “once you know that you have been forgiven of all your sins, past, present and future, the healing of all our diseases follows” (p.290).


What I like: I think Prince is correct to say that the Bible speaks of a God who heals our diseases, and this is a true expression of the forgiveness and grace of God. Physical healing is taught and prayed for and experienced in the Bible.

What I had reservations about: Whilst the book speaks of Bible passages where physical healing is expected and takes place, it says nothing about the passages that accept (without surprise or anguish) that miraculous physical healing did not take place e.g. 2 Tim 4:20; Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Tim 5:23; Gal 4:13-14. Incidentally, Galatians 4:13-14 tells us explicitly that Paul did have a bodily sickness which resulted in the greater good of the Gospel being preached contra Prince’s statement that “Paul did not suffer any sickness or disease” (p. 71). The problem is not so much with what Prince affirms viz. that healing is a blessing from a God who is full of grace; the problem is with what he omits to affirm viz. that physical illness without healing on earth can also fall within the gracious providence of God. The Bible teaches us both to pray for physical healing and to be prepared to endure illness with patient endurance.


The victorious Christian life is one that remains faithful to God in both times of abundance and poverty, in sickness or in health, for richer or for poorer (cf. Philippians 4:12-13). I do not know the ministry of Prince well enough to be sure of what he really thinks about healing on earth. Perhaps if you listen long enough to his sermons, you may be able to make a fairer assessment. Does he preach to help Christians cope with the onslaught of poverty and illness, or does he speak only of removing sickness and suffering by effortless faith? We need both messages, because that is the balance we find in Scripture.

In general, most preachers are prone to partial teaching. We all tend to favour one side of the balance more than the other as a result of our personal experience of God’s dealings with us. The danger comes when we imply that the side we prefer is the only true side of biblical truth!


May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we seek to live in ways that befit those who have been saved by such a wonderful grace as that which our Lord Jesus has lavished on us.



  1. This post has cost me to ask questions. I am not sure if they are going to be answered, but here are they anyway

    @The book is weak on emphasising the ongoing value of the Law for both Christians and unbelievers.”
    I too have long for an answer to this question.
    – What is the value of the Law to believers?

    If grace enables us to love and love is the fulfillment of the law
    what then is the value of the law when it is fulfilled by love?

    surely grace does not cause us to murder, rather love our neighbor and would willingly die for them
    so what is the value of the law?

    if the law is summarized into one word “love” and grace makes us loving
    will the lack of the law cause us to “not love”? when grace makes us loving?

    what does romans 6:14 really means?

    “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace”
    – romans 6:14

    what does galatians 3:24-25 really means?

    “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ,
    so that we may be justified by faith.
    But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor”
    – galatians 3:24-25

    @”Doing so would fail to do justice to the biblical balance which speaks also of
    the ongoing positive value of the Law for Christians.”

    I would like to know the possitive value of the law for Christians.

    and what law is this? the new covenant Law I know is written in our hearts
    that new law I definitely know the value.

    but if dr gordon wong is refering to the old law, what is the possitive value?
    does the possitive value of the old, supercedes the possitive value of the new?
    or isnt it the the new is better than the old?

    how do we balance this leviticus law?

    “when a drunkard son refuses to listen to his parent, he must be stoned to death”


    “thou shall not murder”

    now in the new law, I know for sure that murder is sin.
    I also know that God enables us to love, because love does not make me a murderer

    what I cannot reconcile, is the use of the old law to a believer who is under a new law
    what more can an old law say to us when the new law does more better than the old?

    @Paul, himself, could sum up the Law very positively as teaching us to love one another (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8,10).

    For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
    – Galatians 5:14

    Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another.
    If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law
    – Romans 13:8

    the result of summation is exaclty the new law. founded by love, founded in grace defined by Jesus.

    we know that the

    the old law is “you have to love, your part”
    the new law is “God loved us first then we love, God’s part”

    Paul wasn’t teaching the old Law, he was teaching/describing the new law.

    For it does not make sense for God to say “I will make a new covenant… I will write my laws in their hearts”
    if Paul taught the old law.

    I was also thinking,

    Paul used to be the pharisee of pharisee. a teacher of the Law.

    but why did paul not taugh the law? why emphasize on grace?
    why did paul not balance grace with the law?

    why did Jesus made Paul write 2/3rds of the new testament? when Peter was all along with Jesus? why not peter?

    did Peter and Paul preached a different gospel? probably not.

    dont we think it was probably Paul’s fault that we are putting much emphasis on grace?
    because paul preached too much on it?

    @”Does he preach to help Christians cope with the onslaught of poverty and illness, or does he speak only
    of removing sickness and suffering by effortless faith?”

    pastor prince advices those who are sick to take medicine. at least i heard it from him. go see a doctor.
    to go check up. I dont think he will say dont to go to doctor when sick.

    i believe going to a doctor, will also certify that the person is really sick.
    then when prayed upon and got healed, the testimony cannot be refuted.

    the question is what does ptr prince teaches about those who were not healed?
    I can guarantee that He will never say “It is the will of God for you to get sick”

    this is a hard topic..
    why some believers who are sick, prayed over and not healed when others
    who are underserving healing are the ones got healed.

    @”The danger comes when we imply that the side we prefer is the only true side of biblical truth!”

    We thank you for people like you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s