Hyper grace

[PeterJens]

Over the past months I have been surprised at the subject being discussed and the aggression of various parties.

Michael Brown published a book on this subject, which seems to be headed by teaching from Joseph Prince.

It seems these people blame sin on the flesh, and attribute perfection to the spirit, by claiming sin is forgiven past, present and future.

A lot of the positions people have taken appear to fall into some of these camps, OSAS, with some calling those who believe in righteousness as pharisees.

So it is of little surprise therefore such arguments have come on this site, though the actual theological sources are often not openly declared.

My conclusion has been those who held to hyper grace fell into the exact problems described, a failure to deal with embedded sin and attitudes from the past, and condemnatory of anybody who suggested we are growing and being sanctified. Some preachers appeared to be going as far as saying to suggest growth in the christian life was evil, because it implied we were not perfect.

I suggest if it interests you, you listen to the points Michael is making, as for me it is obvious heresy, and causing lots of confusion and division among some good people, or maybe not so good people.

[video=youtube;GAtlMPvZGxg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAtlMPvZGxg[/video]

 

[Grandpa]

I think it is dangerous to attack the most important way we relate to God.

And that is by faith.

The one and only way we come to Christ is by believing we are already forgiven of our sins prior to coming to Him. If we didn't believe that we couldn't dare approach.

It would be like coming before a hungry lion wrapped in raw steak. You wouldn't be able to form coherent thoughts for fear of what was next.

So if we don't believe we are already forgiven of our sins before we come to Christ, then we have regarded our sin before the Lord as more powerful than the Blood He has Shed for the remission of them.


The wicked will use doctrines for wickedness. That's just what the wicked do. That doesn't make the doctrine itself wicked.

We must come to Christ as children. This doesn't change because certain people might 'abuse' the privelege.

God Bless you, I know you mean well.

 

[breno785au]

I don't know what hyper grace is but I think its important to at least begin to grasp that Gods grace is far greater than our own limitations.
I mean as in, I know myself, that I can limit Gods extension of mercy, forgiveness and grace according to my own understanding or my own limits which is severely wrong. (I assume that a lot of people would tend to do this)

 

[Mitspa]

There is some problems with what some are teaching as grace...but this fellow don't seem to grasp the issue from what I watched.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Hyper-grace is an unfortunate term for licentiousness.

For certain men have slipped in stealthily, who were designated long ago for this condemnation, ungodly ones, who change the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ. Jude 1:4​

 

[royalscot]

Romans 8: Life in the Spirit
1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

if your going to return to basic foundation. then, what have you been set free from. so asking was i saved by law, or saved by grace. so looking at an action , would make grace, void, what do you believe.

Galatians 5: Christ Has Set Us Free
1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

.4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

so what is he saying, that grace is a gift. if our action play a part in grace, how can it be a gift.

paul also talks about spiritual gift, but in human terms, he explains, you have a soul, thats emotions inside you, that have to be governed, in a way that builds faith in god. not condemnation. to return to, you feel unworthy or in fear again to believe your a sinner without hope. is not from god. if you already believe. etc

 

[james57]

The idea that if the penalty of sin is removed a christian will sin less is a belief the logical mind of man cannot accept for it makes no sense to the rational mind. But that belief is the core of Paul's Gospel message of grace. For if the christian has a righteousness before God apart from the law Jesus MUST have died for all their sins at Calvary, past, present and future.
For sin shall not be your master for you are not under law but under grace rom 6:14
If a person who is not born again of the holy spirit believed the above, the would use grace as a licence to sin. The person who has been truly born again of the holy spirit cannot use grace as a licence to sin.
I have read Joseph Prince book. Destined to reign. I would thoroughly recommend it. In line with Paul's message he believes if the christian accepts Christ died for all their sin, past, present and future this will result in them sinning far less.
He gives an illustration something like the following:

Some boys pass a derelict building one day and ignore it. The next day the same boys pass the building and there is a sign up.
Do not throw stones.
A few minutes later the sound of breaking glass can be heard.
There maybe a couple of minor points in the book I didn't see the same as joseph prince, but the general thrust of the message was in line with what Paul wrote in rom 6:14

The apostle Paul certainly found he sinned less once he knew he was not under law but under grace( Jesus died for all his sin)

Do some who have not been born again abuse such grace? Sure, they did in NT times( jude4) but it didn't stop the true message of grace being preached, nor must it now

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

There is some problems with what some are teaching as grace...but this fellow don't seem to grasp the issue from what I watched.

IMO Michael Brown is not the most discerning card in the deck. He was part of the leadership at the Brownsville Revival (Pensacola Outpouring), and thinks it was great.

 

[royalscot]

when were you born perfect, what did you do to save yourself. and after the holy spirit was give, did you know, fully the meaning to what sin is.(ie how could you, you could not save your self) but using the same augment that paul already explain is an other foundation. that seem to bring up in gal.(licence to sin) jewish v gentile. only one was perfect in gods eyes.

again asking why are you look at law to define sin, in you or anyone else. when your saved by grace a gift.

 

[james57]

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay I had not known sin but by the law: For I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For WITHOUT THE LAW SIN WAS DEAD
For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came sin revived and I died
And the commandment which was ordained to life I found to be unto death
For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived me, and by it slew me rom7:7-11

 

[james57]

when were you born perfect, what did you do to save yourself. and after the holy spirit was give, did you know, fully the meaning to what sin is.(ie how could you, you could not save your self) but using the same augment that paul already explain is an other foundation. that seem to bring up in gal.(licence to sin) jewish v gentile. only one was perfect in gods eyes.

again asking why are you look at law to define sin, in you or anyone else. when your saved by grace a gift.

When I became a christian I became aware/ was conscious of my sin before God for the first time in my life. Could I at that point explain doctrinally what sin was? Probably not. I never knew when I became a christian the law God required me to keep had been written on my mind and placed on my heart.

John defined sin under the new covenant:

Sin is(not was) the transgression of the law. 1john 3:4 KJV

 

[crossnote]

Hyper grace would disregard this type of warning...

Galatians 6:7-8 KJVS
[7] Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. [8] For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 

[Stephen63]

I have some questions about this subject, & while doing so I'll be trying to be as neutral as I can.

1. I see a discussion about possibly one of the newest doctrines to be accepted by the majority, or simply a large amount of the modern church. Is this true?

2. I hear that one of the proponents of this doctrine is Joseph Prince, one of the newest mainstream televangelists. Is this true?

3. Why the sudden turning to this doctrine? Does it have clear, scriptural backing for it?

4. A new doctrine written about by a new/newer televangelist..... and this belief hasn't ever been "discovered" before in the past or in early church history?

5. IF we're the Bereans we'd like to think we are, with the current info, tell me..... HOW did this "new theology" get as far as it did without major scriptural scrutiny?

6. Just how important is it that we "prove" every doctrine we believe?

7. Can I start a new doctrine tomorrow? Am I being sarcastic? You bet I am! We are in the last days, possibly the last of the last days, & we are to expect false doctrines to pop up like dandelions in our yards. Yet the modern church swallows up this without alarm or investigation? While not trying to say something is totally wrong here, it seem to me there's not much of anyone doing a lot of right about this topic in the church.

It doesn't seem that long ago that most mainstream denominations wouldn't have touched this doctrine with a ten foot pole simply because they were so cautious about such things. Now, those same denominations give every doctrine under the sun an equal opportunity against their tried & proven beliefs.

The Great Falling Away has already started. Are we still as conservative/old school with doctrine as we'd like to believe, or are we lying to ourselves? IMO, that might be the difference between being on the broad way or the narrow way. What do you think?

 

[Sirk]

I have some questions about this subject, & while doing so I'll be trying to be as neutral as I can.

1. I see a discussion about possibly one of the newest doctrines to be accepted by the majority, or simply a large amount of the modern church. Is this true?

2. I hear that one of the proponents of this doctrine is Joseph Prince, one of the newest mainstream televangelists. Is this true?

3. Why the sudden turning to this doctrine? Does it have clear, scriptural backing for it?

4. A new doctrine written about by a new/newer televangelist..... and this belief hasn't ever been "discovered" before in the past or in early church history?

5. IF we're the Bereans we'd like to think we are, with the current info, tell me..... HOW did this "new theology" get as far as it did without major scriptural scrutiny?

6. Just how important is it that we "prove" every doctrine we believe?

7. Can I start a new doctrine tomorrow? Am I being sarcastic? You bet I am! We are in the last days, possibly the last of the last days, & we are to expect false doctrines to pop up like dandelions in our yards. Yet the modern church swallows up this without alarm or investigation? While not trying to say something is totally wrong here, it seem to me there's not much of anyone doing a lot of right about this topic in the church.

It doesn't seem that long ago that most mainstream denominations wouldn't have touched this doctrine with a ten foot pole simply because they were so cautious about such things. Now, those same denominations give every doctrine under the sun an equal opportunity against their tried & proven beliefs.

The Great Falling Away has already started. Are we still as conservative/old school with doctrine as we'd like to believe, or are we lying to ourselves? IMO, that might be the difference between being on the broad way or the narrow way. What do you think?

I think you raise some good points. We should be cautious about things we ascribe too. However...Jesus didn't defend Himself. Is it unreasonable to think that He doesn't need our defense either? People go back to where they were first loved...not to where they were chastised and stripped of their humanity by the uber religious.

 

[Stephen63]

"Guilty till proven innocent" should be the way every new doctrine is handled.

 

[VioletReigns]

Hyper grace is not even a thing.

Amazing grace is, however. \/

 

[Sirk]

"Guilty till proven innocent" should be the way every new doctrine is handled.

Only God possess that authority. The way you have written it here sounds bitter.

 

[ladylynn]

I have some questions about this subject, & while doing so I'll be trying to be as neutral as I can.

1. I see a discussion about possibly one of the newest doctrines to be accepted by the majority, or simply a large amount of the modern church. Is this true?

2. I hear that one of the proponents of this doctrine is Joseph Prince, one of the newest mainstream televangelists. Is this true?

3. Why the sudden turning to this doctrine? Does it have clear, scriptural backing for it?

4. A new doctrine written about by a new/newer televangelist..... and this belief hasn't ever been "discovered" before in the past or in early church history?

5. IF we're the Bereans we'd like to think we are, with the current info, tell me..... HOW did this "new theology" get as far as it did without major scriptural scrutiny?

6. Just how important is it that we "prove" every doctrine we believe?

7. Can I start a new doctrine tomorrow? Am I being sarcastic? You bet I am! We are in the last days, possibly the last of the last days, & we are to expect false doctrines to pop up like dandelions in our yards. Yet the modern church swallows up this without alarm or investigation? While not trying to say something is totally wrong here, it seem to me there's not much of anyone doing a lot of right about this topic in the church.

It doesn't seem that long ago that most mainstream denominations wouldn't have touched this doctrine with a ten foot pole simply because they were so cautious about such things. Now, those same denominations give every doctrine under the sun an equal opportunity against their tried & proven beliefs.

The Great Falling Away has already started. Are we still as conservative/old school with doctrine as we'd like to believe, or are we lying to ourselves? IMO, that might be the difference between being on the broad way or the narrow way. What do you think?

I have listened to Joseph Prince and what he is preaching is not new or 'another gospel'. The church has gotten away from preaching the gospel of grace and truth. It is 'legalism' that has grown in leaps and bounds over the years (you are right Stephen63) and the love of God has not been focused on. People have gone back to living under the law and not under grace. "another gospel" is living under law, and not grace that was first preached to us by Paul. This I've observed Prince to be preaching and teaching, what Paul preached.

Paul's grace preaching was so radical people were misunderstanding him to say that Christians should sin so that grace would abound. And today because grace IS being preached as Paul preached it., the same false accusations are being made against those who up hold the truth gospel of grace and truth that Jesus brought.

People relate to what Prince says because He is focusing on Christ and His finished work. Not on Christians and their works and failures. When we look at ourselves we are defeated. When we look at Jesus we are doing what the Bible instructs., looking to Jesus the Author and finisher of our faith.

Look away from self and look too Christ. He is our sufficiently and when we see Him it is then we are complete.,strengthened in our inner man. This is a good thing.

 

[crossnote]

Only God possess that authority. The way you have written it here sounds bitter.

The Bereans didn't think so...

Acts 17:11 KJVS
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

 

[crossnote]

IMO Michael Brown is not the most discerning card in the deck. He was part of the leadership at the Brownsville Revival (Pensacola Outpouring), and thinks it was great.

That may be so, but after watching the video I believe he is spot on when it comes to this Hyper Grace topic.

One of the points I found interesting is some have an austere picture of God so they avoid coming to Him to 'spill the beans'.
Others have a view that there is no need to go to Him to confess our sins (because it's all forgiven..they say) but the outcome is the same...avoiding 'coming clean' with God.