The neo-Gnostic spirit of New.Modern.Hyper Grace
- Thread starter HeRoseFromTheDead
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The straw man is among many. License to sin, no repentance, no confession, fruit doesn't matter, and more. You keep setting them up, arguing against them and then thinking you've accomplished something when in fact none of those things are purported by Hyper-Grace.
Somehow you think these believers live licentiously and then excuse it, even boasting in their sin. This is not so, and is a false accusation. It goes back to renewing our mind; how can you accuse these believers in God's grace of such a perspective when they continue to tell you that we have victory over sin and it wont dominate us? That we are to confess, or come in agreement with God in regards to sin, our need for Jesus, and praise Him for His providence (His blood)? Or, even, that because we are born again we shall bear fruit if given the opportunity?
Tell me, are these not straw man raised for the purpose of refutation, to make it seem as if you are revealing the error(s) of Hyper-grace? Yet, what is the truth? Every single disagreement is not what Hyper-Grace teaches. So why refute something that is not being put forward? Maybe in your mind this is what they teach but let me inform you that you are incorrect. None of these things, these false allegations, are true. Not one.
Now that you are aware that your issues with Hyper-Grace are unfounded, you can look into Hyper-Grace with an open mind. See it for what it is, God's truth. Not with preconceived notions, but with an open mind and heart. Not licentiousness but liberty. Freedom from the chains that bound us, and a practice of renewing your mind to these truths so that you may walk in the victory that Christ purchased for you. You have it, you only need to awaken to it.
Somehow you think these believers live licentiously and then excuse it, even boasting in their sin. This is not so, and is a false accusation. It goes back to renewing our mind; how can you accuse these believers in God's grace of such a perspective when they continue to tell you that we have victory over sin and it wont dominate us? That we are to confess, or come in agreement with God in regards to sin, our need for Jesus, and praise Him for His providence (His blood)? Or, even, that because we are born again we shall bear fruit if given the opportunity?
Tell me, are these not straw man raised for the purpose of refutation, to make it seem as if you are revealing the error(s) of Hyper-grace? Yet, what is the truth? Every single disagreement is not what Hyper-Grace teaches. So why refute something that is not being put forward? Maybe in your mind this is what they teach but let me inform you that you are incorrect. None of these things, these false allegations, are true. Not one.
Now that you are aware that your issues with Hyper-Grace are unfounded, you can look into Hyper-Grace with an open mind. See it for what it is, God's truth. Not with preconceived notions, but with an open mind and heart. Not licentiousness but liberty. Freedom from the chains that bound us, and a practice of renewing your mind to these truths so that you may walk in the victory that Christ purchased for you. You have it, you only need to awaken to it.
I'll respond to this tomorrow, but you're just repeating the new.modern.hyper grace talking points that you've been taught to repeat. I haven't discussed the bolded topics you mentioned in the context you're trying to present, but you're addressing me like I have. You're simply framing talking points within the crafted framework that you've learned how to argue with. That's why it's difficult IMO to have a reasoned discussion with you.
Hmmm, maybe the source of the w is the problem? If you were to back space up to the w it might inadvertently remove part of the source code. I am just guessing. These text boxes that we type into are "hot." That means, when I paste Scripture for example, the verse number may look like just a number, but it is a link and goes into my message as a link, so anyone could click on such a number in my post and it would open a new tab to that Scripture, even though I never see the link while I am composing my message. That is why copying from different sources needs to be checked multiple times also, if you care about things such as uniformity of font type and size, because whatever you copy will transfer over, unlike other places where the text box automatically standardizes everything and removes links etc.
Your own post showed up perfectly, but the quote is littered with the broken syntax,
COLOR=#333333]Well is it in this post? I just copied your [/COLOR]W and posted it. Does it still reveal itself? Why its doing that, IDK. I think I copied a W from Google, just typing in "abcdefg..." and then a W appears. Then I copy it. Or I'll copy another user's W, like I just did for this post.
COLOR=#333333]Well is it in this post? I just copied your [/COLOR]W and posted it. Does it still reveal itself? Why its doing that, IDK. I think I copied a W from Google, just typing in "abcdefg..." and then a W appears. Then I copy it. Or I'll copy another user's W, like I just did for this post.
Last edited:
I don't mean to say you've done all of these (surely I recall a couple), but the last couple of days others have brought these "issues" up. You have brought up the sin misconception, even comparing it to Gnosticism. I am not offering you a format, but just offering you my observation that your disagreements are unfounded. Another user heavily puts these arguments up for refutation, but they too are misrepresenting Hyper-Grace. These are talking points because they continue to be put forth as errors of Hyper-Grace, yet they aren't. Hyper-Grace doctrine is being maligned.
Last edited: