Mysticism & righteousness

[PeterJens]

This brings up another aspect of mystic-type beliefs: the focus being only on inward things and outward things are considered to be inconsequential or irrelevant.

One manifestation of this that I've witnessed is the belief that we are the righteousness of GOD, yet we are totally unable to do GOD's righteousness. That belief reveals a real schism in the mind and a detachment from reality.

I agree. I have been trying to get an emotional handle on the idea of insult, injury.

If I say something, a concept and the person feels an bad emotional response that wold be called an insult.

So if as a sincere believer trying to do Gods will and working things through a failing, it is not my fault.
I want to do Gods will. My theology says I am saved and ok. So I am now free to struggle on in security.

Now along comes evil legalist. He says you are not saved because you are struggling.
He says you do not care about right living and it does not matter when to you personally it does.
So this is a slander and a lie.

Now the theology says sinning does not matter you are saved. We are saying therefore you can
do anything, which is true, but not true to their emotional intent or desire.

I therefore can understand the hurt and response they all feel.
It is though theologically true, which is why I do not agree with the theology.

It is also true as we are enemies, why should they agree that my intent is to show a theological
failure and not demean their desire to walk correctly. So each group feel justified.

Unfortunately this is caused by the mystic vs righteousness divide faith and not intentions.
I wonder if they can understand this, or how closed minded they really are. We shall see...

 

[PeterJens]

And again.. "I peter suggest" Because they don't agree with you they need to repent and seek God, this is such disturbing behaviour

I am saying what God is saying, repent of sin, real sin, not invented sin, or mystical sin.

It is part of our calling as children of God to call people to repentance.

The message of the gospel is Repent of your sins. If you stand against this message of God you are saying sin is ok, it does not lead to judgement and Hell. It does not get clearer than that. You cannot be nice or polite about sin.

Sin as in Gods law, not mystical ariey fairy, I got scared today so that is the sin of disbelief, or I liked a picture and that is the sin of covertousness, or I saw how little money I have and wondered how I will get more, so that is greed.

So much distortion, wrong ideas, wrong condemnation, wrong encouragements. And yes ofcourse the hyper-grace preachers preach hyper-legalism or else you would not accept your sins and future sins are wiped clean and only lost legalists do not accept this mystical belief.

But we are happy to shine a light on this reality.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Has anybody once on here said its okay to do this with your body, or its okay to sin over and over.. I have never heard one of the so-called "Hyper-grace" teachers ever say that sin is okay!! Quite the opposite infact... How can we carry on living in sin with Christ in us ???? Roams 6:1 Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound, of course not!! How can you who are dead to sin carry on living in it...

I have no idea if anyone on this forum has said what you asked. That's irrelevant. I am speaking in conceptual terms about a doctrine.

There's little to no difference between saying that people can sin all they want and still be saved, and saying whatever a person does is irrelevant to salvation. The first can be considered to be libertine antinomianism, and the second is called Sandemanian antinomianism (not teaching to sin, but not forbidding it either). Just different stages of the same aberration.

 

[BeyondET]

I am simply repeating the explanation Ezekiel is giving. These are the words of God.

So 100% this is the word of God. What else are you saying it is? Can you not read or understand english?

Define it like so,, by placing the Ezekiel under ((these are the words of God)),, because by just placing those words under your whole thread will give the impression of you stating the whole thread is the word of God.

 

[BeyondET]

And secondly it's not dispute among people it's your personal opinion clearly

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here you are accusing a brother again...

I suggest that you back up and see the aggressive 'accusing' stance that some others took with Peter first.

 

[JennaLeanne]

I have no idea if anyone on this forum has said what you asked. That's irrelevant. I am speaking in conceptual terms about a doctrine.

There's little to no difference between saying that people can sin all they want and still be saved, and saying whatever a person does is irrelevant to salvation. The first can be considered to be libertine antinomianism, and the second is called Sandemanian antinomianism (not teaching to sin, but not forbidding it either). Just different stages of the same aberration.

You both talk in riddles to me.. It makes my head spin! Ill put that down to my lack of Education... Praise God he chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise....

 

[PeterJens]

Define it like so,, by placing the Ezekiel under ((these are the words of God)),, because by just placing those words under your whole thread will give the impression of you stating the whole thread is the word of God.

You could take that meaning, but in the end the word of God is what He means by His message.

If I was a lawyer and I wanted to clearly define everything I would have to put explanations by everything. Thankfully I do not have to and God does not either.

I suggest it is up to the reader to take the meaning they are happy with. What I wanted to emphasis this is the Word of God, His intention, His message, His truth, His testimony. I am just one guy in 2016 reading from a book 3000 years old, quoting a prophet who spoke to Gods people. It is my calling and my conviction, this is the Word of God.

The question is what is the reader going to do?

 

[Grace777x70]

Objection #2: Hyper-Grace Preachers are Soft on Sin

This is a common one, of course. The idea here is that because of our high esteem of the finished work of Christ and our insistence upon keeping our eyes fixated on Jesus as Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2), we are either afraid to preach against sin or do not take sin seriously enough.

Far from being “soft on sin” – we who preach grace are extremely big on Jesus. Any gospel worthy of the hyper-grace label is a gospel which points all fingers toward Jesus rather than judgmentally pointing them at those He came to save.

There are definitely many contexts in which it is appropriate to talk about sin, warn about sin and preach against sin. I do this routinely in my preaching ministry, as do my friends who are also labeled as hyper-grace preachers. Sin is bad. It is ugly. It brings death to everything it touches. It grieves God. It makes us miserable. It comes with a variety of consequences.

No legitimate grace-preacher that I am aware of minimizes the reality that sin is evil, wrong, bad, unproductive and unfitting for a new creation in Christ.

What we DO focus on, however, is the Answer to sin, which is Jesus – and the fact that His grace alone is precisely what delivers us from its penalty (death), its power (enslavement) and eventually even its very presence (when we live in the fullness of His heavenly kingdom one day).

I talk about sin all the time, but not as a means of manipulating, judging or condemning people. I talk about sin so as to help people understand both their daily and eternal need for Jesus as Savior and Lord.

We hyper-grace preachers are simply standing with Paul on the promise that it is the grace of God which “teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in the present age…” (Titus 2:11-13).

Paul taught that the power of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15:56). If a person wants to ensure that they will remain in slavery to life-dominating sin and addiction, one simple way to do that is to live under a law-based mentality.

A grace-saturated life, however, frees us from the grip of sin’s mastery over us. Far from being soft on sin, we take sin very seriously. So seriously that we are pointing people unapologetically to the only Source of rescue from it! That Source is not trying harder to be a good person, culturally-espoused self-help tactics or pop-psychology.

That Source is Jesus Christ and the grace He alone offers.

Why I am Hyper-Grace: Answering Five Common Objections

 

[TonyJay]

Peter, if you want to post on a forum such as this you should expect people who do not agree with your position to both comment on it and challenge its validity.
If that is your definition of "judgmental" I can wear that no problem, however you appear to be suggesting that what what I am doing is ungodly and unchristian.
After all, you have already told me to repent!

However, I am interested in what you are saying, although I am struggling a bit to understand how someone who has been so active on a forum such as this seems not to know his Bible or understand theological precepts - after all the subform you posted in is exactly there to explore both of these things.

The reason I questioned you about Abraham is very simple:
You made a completely untrue statement that that prior to Jesus human beings needed to become Jews to get to God.
In Genesis chapter 12 God called Abram and gave him a promise. By faith Abram believed him. And so what we now refer to as the Abrahamic covenant was sealed.
Now it is crucially important to understand that several NT writers make a big deal of this. Paul, and others, stress the fact that: "Abraham believed and it was accounted to him as righteousness" - this phrase is used in Romans, Galatians, James, and perhaps elsewhere as well to point out several things:
One does not need Levitical law to approach God - this directly contradicts your statement about people needing to become Jews to approach God;
One does not come to God by one's works - over and over the NT writers stress that Abraham was justified by faith.
Grace was a key component of the Abrahamic covenant - Abram was not chosen by God because he was sinless nor did he have any other special qualification. He did not deserve to be chosen. However, once he accepted what God proposed that covenant could not be undone - it was unconditional. Now if you read all about Abraham's life you note a couple of very unsavoury incidents in his life - he sinned - no doubt about it.
However, in the NT he is feted as one of the great men of faith.
Was Paul and the rest of the NT writers who reference the life of Abraham in this way wrong?
Why does Paul in particular reference Abraham in such great detail in Roman's in constructing his argument that salvation is by grace through faith?
I am not talking about the odd verse here and there I am talking line-after-line, verse-after-verse, and chapter-after-chapter.
In Romans chapter 3:

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[i]through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,
30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Verses 28 and 31 should be of particular interest to you.
Do not try to isolate vs 31 from the rest read the whole passage and go read the whole of Romans with an open mind.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

The reason I questioned you about Abraham is very simple:
You made a completely untrue statement that that prior to Jesus human beings needed to become Jews to get to God.

It's possible (and probable IMO) that he meant that was true after the old covenant was implemented.

 

[TonyJay]

The dictionary definition of grace is hardly suitable for adequately explaining GOD's grace towards sinners.

If one does not the meaning of grace how can one understand the meaning of God's grace?

If you read my post on this carefully you might note that I distinguish between the dictionary definition and the theology of grace.
Nonetheless one does have to start somewhere...

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If one does not the meaning of grace how can one understand the meaning of God's grace?

If you read my post on this carefully you might note that I distinguish between the dictionary definition and the theology of grace.
Nonetheless one does have to start somewhere...

Defining grace as unmerited and unconditional favour that can neither be earned nor can it be withdrawn (otherwise it is not grace) is overly simplistic, and not altogether accurate. There's a bit more to it. Grace has a variety of meanings

link > The meaning of "Grace" in the Bible

.

 

[Grace777x70]

You both talk in riddles to me.. It makes my head spin! Ill put that down to my lack of Education... Praise God he chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise....

Paul talks about not having our minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ and what He has done. We are called "believers" for a reason.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[TonyJay]

Defining grace as unmerited and unconditional favour that can neither be earned nor can it be withdrawn (otherwise it is not grace) is overly simplistic, and not altogether accurate. There's a bit more to it. Grace has a variety of meanings

link > The meaning of "Grace" in the Bible

.

Actually, particularly in the context of the points that I was making and the theological concepts discussed my definition is a very good one - go and check your link.

 

[PeterJens]

You made a completely untrue statement that that prior to Jesus human beings needed to become Jews to get to God.

From the time of taking Israel out of Egypt to the time of Jesus, to find God you needed to become a Jew.

Are you saying there are other dispensations that you know about?

Now I only know the time of my life and what I read of in scripture. You use the term completely untrue. Please show me how I have lied and where in scripture it says there is another way of finding God other than through His people.
As this is the only positive I know of this is what I am going with.

Your argument is about grace working throughout history. This is so convoluted and not there I am not going to try and understand.

We are heirs because of a relationship of the faith of Abraham had with God. You could say if we had the same relationship of faith then we also could find God. You could extend that to today and say Jesus is not the only way, you could find God without Jesus.

This is not what Jesus says though. So following logically on, unless you have a special revelation, what I have described is 100% correct. Ofcourse you can have your opinoin but you have not really expressed it properly.

Your approach seems to be to show I have no argument or authority, then come with a proposal. If both do not add up, it is not actually much there.

Now what I am saying is simple. We need to repent of sin. I have no message for you personally, I am sharing Gods word.
Do you have sin you need to repent of, which this sharing has stirred up in you? What else are you sharing?

Mysticism is ok and true?

 

[PeterJens]

Actually, particularly in the context of the points that I was making and the theological concepts discussed my definition is a very good one - go and check your link.

A small question. What you are saying is nothing to do with the point I am making about sin and righteousness.

It suggests to me you do not agree but cannot be open about this. Please be open, or else there is nothing to say.
The point of these threads is to address the point. My impression is you want to distract it, which is very different.

 

[PeterJens]

Paul talks about not having our minds corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ and what He has done. We are called "believers" for a reason.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Very true. The simplicity of the gospel is we are sinners, who are made righteous and empowered to walk with righteousness by His work in our lives, as choosing conscious human beings. It comes from repentance, confession of sins and faith in Christ followed by obedience to His commands.

It does not get simpler that that. Repent and be saved.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

IMO another manifestation of mysticism is the belief that Jesus obeys GOD through us, and the thought that we ourselves can be obedient to GOD is considered to be pride. It's bonkers.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Very true. The simplicity of the gospel is we are sinners, who are made righteous and empowered to walk with righteousness by His work in our lives, as choosing conscious human beings. It comes from repentance, confession of sins and faith in Christ followed by obedience to His commands.

It does not get simpler that that. Repent and be saved.

I disagree on this point. We are imputed with righteousness, and we walk in the faith of that imputation to do righteousness.

The mystic-mindset believes that the person himself is righteous.