Once you start saying that scientific facts can provide a corrective to people’s interpretation of scripture, you start tossing out everything: geocentrism, a young earth, Adam and Eve, the Flood, God’s miracles, Jesus’ virgin birth, Jesus’ resurrection, and finally the existence of God at all.

No. Science may in no way affect our interpretation of Scripture. The Bible interprets itself and we can tell from the Bible which parts are to be understood literally and which are figurative.

The Earth is immovable.

Even the organizations which have partially corrupted the Bible with “science”, like Answers in Genesis, accept this. They clearly accept that Psalm 104 describes God’s expansion of the universe like spreading out a tent. Even such a corrupted organization as they recognize that when the Bible speaks, it is true and must not be “reinterpreted” by “science”. Such a view is a denial of all that the Bible holds and almost certainly points to a rejection of Christ.

however where is carrying the cross? living a godly life and paul said let us wak circumspectly. in another place – be holy for he who calls us is holy. 1 john 1:9 says we have to confess since we are not perfect and this is where grace comes in. prince had not balanced his writing in this book i must say.

where is seeking the giver instead of the gift? seeking the healer instead of the healing? the financial provision instead of the financial provider? we seek solution instead of the solution provider. i am of the view that we have to focus on jesus instead of the various provision, meaning carry the cross. in this paul writes about grace but his life was not so gracious-scourging, persecuting, imprisonment, shipwrecked etc. ensure that he was carrying the cross, branding the marks of a true disciple. i strongly believe that if without faith, paul cannot carry on with the type of situation he was under. he was not writing about grace from the best of given scenario. on the contrary, he was writing from the worse of times, yet he persevered. this is faith.

undoubtedly price had expounded grace to the hilt, but let us balance things out – without carrying the cross; grace is just for abuse and license.

The message of this ‘distorted grace’ may seem profitable for a season but in the long run, it will have its dire consequence.

Doing away with most of the teachings of Christ in the four Gospels because they were taught before the Cross and then misinterpreting the teachings of Paul by changing the original meanings are dangerous. Soon there will be a large group of undiscerning believers, who sincerely desire the grace of God, reducing the importance of the teachings of Christ and ultimately rejecting them completely. It does not take a whole load of poison to destroy.

I must point our that on page 134, Joseph Prince writes, “The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit never convicts you of your sins. He NEVER comes to point out your faults. I challenge you to find a scripture in the Bible that the Holy Spirit comes to convict you of your sins.”

This contradicts what the Bible teaches about the conviction of sin which is done by the Holy Spirit and that will lead to repentance. Joseph Prince says that the only repentance believers need to do is to repent from repenting.

According to 2 Corinthians 7:8-11, the Apostle Paul mentions that the Corinthian believers, after reading his stern reprimand, they repented. After realizing their sin, they were sorrowful. As a result of this conviction of sin (and not as Joseph Prince says, ‘conviction of righteousness’), the Holy Spirit led them to repentance.

To Joseph Prince, all repentance is for the purpose of salvation. He does not see the dynamic relational aspect of repentance. What he does not realize too is that when believers are convicted of sin and have a need to repent – they do not repent unto the judgement of God but unto the grace and mercy of God.

i agree with you that there are some excellent passages which Joseph Prince has expounded and revealed excellent insights into the grace of God. However, these are dangerously mixed up with his own theological misinterpretations so much so that this book becomes almost dangerous for undiscerning readers.