Hyper grace

[james57]

Christians are saints that sometimes sin.

.

Amen......

 

[PeterJens]

That is a whole lot of philosophy.... either we are sinners ( unbeliever) or saints ( believer ) now because of our new birth. We are born of God. we "were" sinners but now we are "different" because of Jesus!..He changes stuff.....

This is language devoid of actions. A sinner is a sinner because of what they do.
Equally the righteous are righteous because of what they do.

As soon as a label defines your acceptability, you have just lost morality. It is a very important concept.
A righteous person has been changed so they can walk in righteousness. If the change does not include behaviour or the ability to walk in it, then there is no meaning, it is just words.

All cults and heresies have to make this break, to justify some strange justification of behaviour is ok even though it is clearly wrong. Now if peoples behaviour do not change you can excuse it by convincing people conviction of wrong behaviour is evil and so must be ignored.

Another teaching along these lines is we are gods. We are made in the image of God, are his children, so we must be creators with command authority to create things into existance. Now clearly from seeing people and their abilities this is self flattery and not true. But once words define reality alone, you can say anything is illusion and reality is something different than the obvious, you just have to claim it. This is the structure of the word of faith.

As some have said, by saying you are ill, makes you ill, because you have commanded it into existance.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is language devoid of actions. A sinner is a sinner because of what they do.
Equally the righteous are righteous because of what they do.

Then God is right, in that there are non righteous no not one.. Since no one can live up to Gods standard..

As soon as a label defines your acceptability, you have just lost morality. It is a very important concept.
A righteous person has been changed so they can walk in righteousness. If the change does not include behaviour or the ability to walk in it, then there is no meaning, it is just words.

Quite the opposite. If one declares to be righteous by what he does, he is the fool who thinks he is better than he really is (according to Gods standards)

But If we have the righteousness of Christ in us, We are changed from the inside out, an our outward deeds will show our inner heart.

All cults and heresies have to make this break, to justify some strange justification of behaviour is ok even though it is clearly wrong. Now if peoples behaviour do not change you can excuse it by convincing people conviction of wrong behaviour is evil and so must be ignored.

Sadly, those who teach we have to do good, justify sin in themseleves, because they claim they are living up to Gods standard. when no man can.

Another teaching along these lines is we are gods. We are made in the image of God, are his children, so we must be creators with command authority to create things into existance. Now clearly from seeing people and their abilities this is self flattery and not true. But once words define reality alone, you can say anything is illusion and reality is something different than the obvious, you just have to claim it. This is the structure of the word of faith.

Mormons? They are about the closest I have ever heard to teach this, yet they deny eternal security also.

As some have said, by saying you are ill, makes you ill, because you have commanded it into existance.

God says we are ill, And in need of rescue (salvation)

Will you let him rescue you, or continue to try to recus yourself?

 

[Grace777x70]

so..you said.. the righteous are righteous because of what they do....now I know you surely did not mean to say that....I won't answer that as I'm sure you will hear from a lot of people about that....just sayin'...

This is language devoid of actions. A sinner is a sinner because of what they do.
Equally the righteous are righteous because of what they do.

As soon as a label defines your acceptability, you have just lost morality. It is a very important concept.
A righteous person has been changed so they can walk in righteousness. If the change does not include behaviour or the ability to walk in it, then there is no meaning, it is just words.

All cults and heresies have to make this break, to justify some strange justification of behaviour is ok even though it is clearly wrong. Now if peoples behaviour do not change you can excuse it by convincing people conviction of wrong behaviour is evil and so must be ignored.

Another teaching along these lines is we are gods. We are made in the image of God, are his children, so we must be creators with command authority to create things into existance. Now clearly from seeing people and their abilities this is self flattery and not true. But once words define reality alone, you can say anything is illusion and reality is something different than the obvious, you just have to claim it. This is the structure of the word of faith.

As some have said, by saying you are ill, makes you ill, because you have commanded it into existance.

 

[PeterJens]

There is a simple concept you are arguing about.
Take a point in time, clear all deeds good or evil before that time, going forward can you walk in righteousness.
Jesus is saying you can, if you walk in the Spirit. You are saying you cannot.

You then invent ways of saying you are forgiven even in failure which is inescapable. So you are still sinners, slaves to sin, and the cross means nothing.

Now if you accept the gospel is saying you can walk in righteousness and still stumble, the next question is how?
If the model says because you cannot see clearly, you still need sanctification, the whole theology is consistent.

If you say you are actually still evil, a sinner stumbling around because of the flesh which will only ever be free at the resurrection, then you have your excuse, and sin is not a choice but a state of being.

Now you can show this is actually partly true. Tumors on the brain can change behaviour so you go things that you would not otherwise do. But I would hold in the area of free choice, motivated by a relationship with Jesus we can walk free from sin in righteousness. Paul would say though he does not judge himself, but responds to when his conscience prompts him. But this model is not good enough for you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There is a simple concept you are arguing about.
Take a point in time, clear all deeds good or evil before that time, going forward can you walk in righteousness.
Jesus is saying you can, if you walk in the Spirit. You are saying you cannot.

No, thats not true. To walk in righteousness would be to walk according to Gods standard, which would mean we are sinless perfect. Even one sin would cause us to walk in unrighteousness.

The issue is whos standard we are looking at to see what true righteousness is.

I was walk in a way that I am a morally good person compaired to the word, But I can not walk in a way I am moraly good person in Gods standard. Thats why I need saved to begin with.

You then invent ways of saying you are forgiven even in failure which is inescapable. So you are still sinners, slaves to sin, and the cross means nothing.

Well the cross means nothing to you. You think you are perfect and no longer need the cross. (If you do not believe this, then you are even more lost than I thought.) and you do not understand the cross.

Now if you accept the gospel is saying you can walk in righteousness and still stumble, the next question is how?
If the model says because you cannot see clearly, you still need sanctification, the whole theology is consistent.

So you are teaching perfection..

Good luck with that. Start studying Gods word, and realising what true sin is, You will clearly see how sinful you really are, then maybe God can start to change you as you start to rely on God and not your flesh.

If you say you are actually still evil, a sinner stumbling around because of the flesh which will only ever be free at the resurrection, then you have your excuse, and sin is not a choice but a state of being.

Na, I have no excuse, No one has an excuse. I sin only because in a moment of time, I take my eyes of God..

But I guess people like you never do this? Ever??

Now you can show this is actually partly true. Tumors on the brain can change behaviour so you go things that you would not otherwise do. But I would hold in the area of free choice, motivated by a relationship with Jesus we can walk free from sin in righteousness. Paul would say though he does not judge himself, but responds to when his conscience prompts him. But this model is not good enough for you.

You do not understand the cross. or the flesh.. Thats all I can fathom by what your saying.

 

[KennethC]

ROMANS 7 to ROMANS 8 Paul is speaking of his conversion of going from a unbeliever to a believer in Christ.

To say Paul did not know sin tell he became a believer would be wrong, for Paul clearly said he would not have known sin if it wasn't for the law.

Pharisees were the law givers !!!

7 speaks on his conversion and struggles faced as a babe in Christ, because the old nature wars against the new.

Paul says how can he be saved from the old vial nature, then in 8 Paul speaks on maturity to stop being carnally minded.

We have liberty in Christ, but that liberty still has a moral standard to uphold.

There are eternal consequences for continuing in deliberate disobedience.

 

[PeterJens]

Righteousness and judgement

We are called to walk in righteousness, but we are judged under grace, because we cannot judge ourselves and rely of Gods forgiveness and mercy to cover over our sins and failures.

This creates a tension between the goal and our need to change and be sanctified. What I am aware of in this walk is at the start we have serious problems and it is clearer where the issues are and what we need to do. Later it is much less obvious, and we often fall into self condemnation rather than rejoicing in our walk.

The problem I have is when people walk in denial of this landscape and the realities of where the failure is and our response. I confess some days I awake with what I would say are sinful convictions or attitudes, but I can choose to have them lift and not define who I am. What is strange is how these feelings or attitudes can change, and are a choice, so it is not obvious how you define who and what you are clearly. But this is where I would differentiate between sinful actions and the precursors or attitudes that lead to sin.

 

[PeterJens]

No, thats not true. To walk in righteousness would be to walk according to Gods standard, which would mean we are sinless perfect. Even one sin would cause us to walk in unrighteousness.

In your eyes, there is no righteous act. Your language is absolute without examples. It does not say this behaviour is acceptable, that is not. You close the door on righteousness and say we are so lost, even in Jesus we cannot walk correctly.

So if Jesus prompts me to give a gift to a friend, that is sinful because I am doing it.
I would suggest that action is righteous because it is not a sinful act.

Now the deeper question is about my motivations. They need to be sorted through over time, but Jesus in effect says this will happen by itself as He changes me, as long as I start to do righteous acts or good works.

Now I see the cross as not just a legal payment of a debt but as the declaration of commitment of God to love and people who listen to Him. It changes the emotional equation of trust, importance, loyalty, morality, once you let it work through who you are.

But most here are so religious, they will only hear religious equations of justification, putting us right, solving the problem of guilt and not I can run up to God and say thankyou, I know you love me, what can I do to serve you?

At this point being sent out and then being called sinners in condemnation and guilt sounds wrong. No it makes sense if through this we have real victory over sin and death, and walk in righteousness, going forward to share this victory empowered by the love at work in our hearts through the cross.

And no I am not perfect or do I fully understand walking in righteousness, but I do not agree with those who say this is impossible, because that denies the obvious teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

It is obvious though it is the theology that limits the aspirations, not reality.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In your eyes, there is no righteous act.

ok. Now your just bearing false witness. Show me where I have ever said this..

Your language is absolute without examples. It does not say this behaviour is acceptable, that is not. You close the door on righteousness and say we are so lost, even in Jesus we cannot walk correctly.

Gods language is absolute, There are non righteous, no not one, we have all sinned and are falling short of the glory of God.

Thats why we need to be saved.

So if Jesus prompts me to give a gift to a friend, that is sinful because I am doing it.
I would suggest that action is righteous because it is not a sinful act.

If you did it because of the proper mental attitude as a child of God. then your right, But you did not do it, God did it through you. Please do not take credit. And not only that, Your talking one act, I am talking about a whole lifetime.

Now the deeper question is about my motivations. They need to be sorted through over time, but Jesus in effect says this will happen by itself as He changes me, as long as I start to do righteous acts or good works.

Yep, it will happen as God changes us, Then again I and everyone like me here has been saying this all along, so what is the issue?

Now I see the cross as not just a legal payment of a debt but as the declaration of commitment of God to love and people who listen to Him. It changes the emotional equation of trust, importance, loyalty, morality, once you let it work through who you are.

I see them as both, But you do not negate one, you have to take them both as full truths.. otherwise, your just taking us back to law.

But most here are so religious, they will only hear religious equations of justification, putting us right, solving the problem of guilt and not I can run up to God and say thankyou, I know you love me, what can I do to serve you?

and who is doing this? Please point the out to me, I see no one saying this.

At this point being sent out and then being called sinners in condemnation and guilt sounds wrong. No it makes sense if through this we have real victory over sin and death, and walk in righteousness, going forward to share this victory empowered by the love at work in our hearts through the cross.

And no I am not perfect or do I fully understand walking in righteousness, but I do not agree with those who say this is impossible, because that denies the obvious teaching of Jesus and the apostles.

It is obvious though it is the theology that limits the aspirations, not reality.

So you agree, we can not be perfect. But you will not admit it, because it may be misunderstood?

This makes no sense.

Gods standard is Gods standard.. You can not live up to it, nor can anyone else. Does it mean we do not strive to run that race? Of course not.. It makes us run even harder, if we truly understand the grace of God.

Grace does not give us lisence, It gives us hope.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

In your eyes, there is no righteous act.

There are righteous acts, thats not the issue,

The issue is when I stand in front of God, with my whole life put on the table. Am I righteous enough to be saved, and the answer is no.. On any given day, All it takes is one sin, and I have broken the law. and am unrighteous..

sorry, if I am too humble to admit I doubt I can go a day without sin,, I would not want to be proud, God resists the proud..

 

[KennethC]

Righteousness and judgement

We are called to walk in righteousness, but we are judged under grace, because we cannot judge ourselves and rely of Gods forgiveness and mercy to cover over our sins and failures.

This creates a tension between the goal and our need to change and be sanctified. What I am aware of in this walk is at the start we have serious problems and it is clearer where the issues are and what we need to do. Later it is much less obvious, and we often fall into self condemnation rather than rejoicing in our walk.

The problem I have is when people walk in denial of this landscape and the realities of where the failure is and our response. I confess some days I awake with what I would say are sinful convictions or attitudes, but I can choose to have them lift and not define who I am. What is strange is how these feelings or attitudes can change, and are a choice, so it is not obvious how you define who and what you are clearly. But this is where I would differentiate between sinful actions and the precursors or attitudes that lead to sin.

The thing that keeps getting me is the continuous misuse of scripture That has people continue to say we don't or have to do nothing.

Jesus Himself said to much has been given, much will be required !!!

He does not bless or give us promises for us to squander. Read what happened to the servant who squandered his in Matthew 25, he did not receive eternal life.

 

[PeterJens]

There are righteous acts, thats not the issue,

The issue is when I stand in front of God, with my whole life put on the table.

Hyper-grace is not making the argument you are putting forward. It is claiming repentance is not related to sin and turning from it. It is saying a believer just needs to believe in Jesus and not deal with sin in their life.

The justification is conviction of sin is of the devil. It is by walking in grace we magically know what is sin and what it is not.

So the discussion is about what is the walk, what is the role of Jesus's commands and obedience to them, what is the nature of being a sinner and being righteous actually is.

Now if you accept you can do righteous acts you then can walk in righteousness.
Paul is arguing it is our relationship to God that frees us to walk in righteousness. Practically speaking I think it is also about listening to what is happening to us emotionally and spiritually and bringing this to the Father.

I would call spiritual maturity is understanding how you are walking and those around you. It is not being proud but being aware. The point about righteousness is it does not have pride or self justification, it is just about doing the right thing at the right time because that is an expression of love from God, through us to others.

But to get people to admit this is possible seems quite hard. What I see around me is people confused, often lost in who they think they need to be and who they actually are. Sin just demonstrates how far off this mark their hearts are, but it is not a reason I condemn them, it is just sad, spiritual blindness. I am driven because sin is self consuming, it leads to continual failure and a spiral out of control, so I desire to encourage people to see it is something we are free from in Jesus, and to claim the victory.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Hyper-grace is not making the argument you are putting forward. It is claiming repentance is not related to sin and turning from it. It is saying a believer just needs to believe in Jesus and not deal with sin in their life.

Your not listening to a word people say

To be saved, Everything you just said is correct. All we need to do is have faith in Jesus, Dealing with sin is a non sequitor. because we can not deal with our sin enough to be saved, period. That is not even the issue.

The issue of dealing with sin comes after one is saved, When God can empower us to change, There is no dealing with sin pre-salvation. because we can not deal with sin.

we can not talk about sanctification (dealing with sin) until we first settle the justification (dealing with the penalty of sin) issue.

 

[Grace777x70]

Beware of the "straw-man!"

A straw-man approach, or argument, is a tactic often described as a logical fallacy. It is the practice of presenting a simplified and often inaccurate summary of an opponent's views, then attacking that summary and concluding that you have thereby won the argument. The problem with it is that the presenter usually does not accurately represent the opponent's views, so what he is attacking is actually a "straw-man", not the actual thing itself.

In the so called hyper-grace arena.....here is an example of the above "straw-man" technique in action.

...people against the grace of our Lord Jesus talked about here will say.."..the hyper-gracers say you don't have to repent and you can do whatever sin you want!" ( this is their straw-man )

Everyone knows that Christians need to change their mind and turn to Jesus....everyone knows that sinning is wrong and will destroy us....which is why Jesus came to save us from. ( This is their attack on the straw-man )

Thus the "straw-man" is killed off and so their original premise shows the validity of their argument. This is not even remotely the truth. In real life no believers in grace says we don't change our way of thinking to line up with God's nor is it ok to sin all you want. It doesn't matter how many times we say that grace is not a licence to sin. It is what some people hear.

What is happening is that people are "hearing" something else other then what is actually being said by believers in the grace of Jesus as outlined in the word of God. Another thing is that it's the definitions of the words that throws people off because a word meaning in their mind is tied to their religious beliefs of the meaning of a word.

 

[Grace777x70]

This is what believers in the grace of our Lord Jesus have to say about "sanctification"..the word itself means = "to be set apart"

We are perfectly sanctified in Christ now....very true....we as an identity the new creation in Christ will never be more holy....however there is a "sanctifying" of our behavior that is on-going that reflects our true nature in Christ...so in essence...we are becoming outwardly who we really are in our inner man which is in Christ.

God sets apart ( sanctifies )our attitudes and actions outwardly but you are 100% set apart ( sanctified ) as a person..the real you in your inner man..the new creation in Christ.

Sanctification to our "religious minds" could mean a lot of different things to different people as it depends on the religious beliefs formulated from our backgrounds....like..no smoking..no drinking..no going to church..no reading your bible every day..no praying for an hour each day.....no going to a movie...reading a newspaper...no being a servant of God...no doing "what I don't do.."..etc

 

[james57]

Paul was talking about the flesh always warring with one's born again spirit. As a Pharisee, he had no experience with the new birth.

..........

 

[Euphemia]

..........

LOL! So glad the truth so moves you!

.

 

[james57]

LOL! So glad the truth so moves you!

.

I don't know if what you wrote moves me or amuses me

But thank you for confirming you believe Paul spoke solely as a christian in rom 7:7-11

 

[ladylynn]

The fundamental failure in this description is was are born sinners. This is clearly wrong. You are only a sinner when you sin.

We are born with the inclination to sin.

Now the difference maybe subtle but it has to do with motivation, and choice. If we are born sinners no matter what we do, then it is not our fault. We are not guilty, we had no choice.

Now the concept of choice is fundamental to the gospel, because it links back to the idea of free will, or even the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge only can be useful if you can put it into action.

If we have a new heart, then we now have motivation in Jesus to walk righteously. It is not inevitable but it is possible.

If you hold you are righteous because you are born again, then again it is not a choice, it is not free will.

Now to stop confusion, think about crossing a road as a blind person or one who can see.
The blind will be killed, those who see can choose when it is safe to cross. So sight makes the choice obvious. It may appear they have no choice, ie they walk righteously by themselves, but it is a product of sight.

So in Jesus righteousness becomes obvious.

But if you build your models on theory and not real life you end up with weird unreal theology that does not work, which is where hyper grace goes wrong.

Now those who say why do christians continue to sin, the answer is, they have not yet learned to apply their sight. It comes through obedience, through seeing consequences, what gives birth to what.

Jesus came to save those who are lost because in Adam all sin., any human who comes into this world is born in sin., guilty by association. Adam is the guy who caused sin to fall on every one. We sin because we are sinners. We don't have an "inclination" to sin., We are born with a sin nature that is against God. Jesus is the only way to come to God..'I am the Way the Truth and the Life..no man comes to the Father but by Me'

By what you have said here Peter is we are not born sinners and we are good but we chose to sin. That somehow if we are 'good enough'it is possible to be accepted by God without Jesus. You said we have an "inclination" to sin...Nooo we are lost in our sin.,totally lost and guilty of sin as if we were murderers we are guilty of hell. We are dead in Adam.

You have it all wrong., we sin because we are born sinners....it's what WE DO. Sinners sin. It's in our Adamic nature to sin. In Adam all sin. In Christ we are made alive. In Adam we are dead in trespasses and sins. In Christ we are made alive in Him and given the gift of His righteousness which we NEED in order to be saved. Can't go with our own righteousness because we are devoid of any goodness.

God gave us the remedy for our Adamic nature... In Christ He gives us a NEW nature. We NEED a Savoir to take our sin nature and hang it up (we are crucified with Christ never the less we live) and give us a new nature., Until you take care of that issue Peter., you will keep trying to be good in your own flesh and you cannot be. None of us can. We need Jesus to give us a new nature. No human being is innocent.