F
FreeNChrist
Guest
You proved my point. Hyper-this to hyper-that.
You would have to have a point for it to be proven. All you have is your hate filled rants.
You proved my point. Hyper-this to hyper-that.
What evidence to do you have that someone prior to him held that view?
Can you imagine the things the catholic church of Luther's day said to hi when he declared " The Just shall live by faith"...those opposed to the grace of God said..." You are going against a 1,000 years of traditional truth in the church and in which all of our scholars have talked about..
Self-based D.I.Y righteousness/holiness mindsets are not based on the finished work of Christ. This man-made religion is as deadly as any other sin in a person's life. It just hides itself in the "veil of good works" but it is anti the cross and anti the work of Christ.
Hi JGIG,
Thanks for your reply. You're "guessing the tone [Rob Rufus takes] ... is similarly misrepresented by [me]"? JGIG, it's wonderful that you have experienced as much of the amazing grace of God as you clearly have. Couldn't you have extended a little of it to me until you had the opportunity to read his words, giving me the benefit of the doubt in the meantime? Now I'm feeling misrepresented!
I read the chapter again just now and have to say I agree with the overwhelming majority of what Rob Rufus writes in it. But for the bit at the beginning of the chapter, he's right!
The words I quoted come in the introduction, three self-contained passages forming a whole, so to quote them in full is also to provide the context. Let me say again that I endorse what he goes on to say in the rest of the chapter. And he provides examples of people who are lost today having experienced legalism in the past. I know of cases where this has happened, too. Anyway, let me quote those three paragraphs.
I cannot teach on the grace of God without addressing those who oppose grace. Grace is awesome in its power to change lives. But radical change encounters radical opposition. It is therefore not surprising that we have to deal with the grace haters.
Grace haters are the legalists who will try to intimidate, manipulate and dominate people with a spirit of witchcraft. The religious spirit in them wants everyone stereotyped and conformed to their own bondage. They are parrots and puppets, no longer voices for God, but echoes, not pursuing God but pursuing opportunities for position and prestige. They are cloned to act the same, dress the same and speak in the same religious tones. You know, where everyone looks the same you can be sure a religious spirit is operating!
If you try to live in the grace of God, I guarantee Satan will send his agent across your path to try to intimidate you and insinuate that you ought not to be living the way you are, that your freedom is not freedom at all but licentiousness. If you haven't experienced this sort of thing it's probably because you have never lived in grace.
So as I don't share the views of my hyper-grace brothers and sisters, the moment I express my opinion I hate grace, intimidate, manipulate and dominate the people I am discussing things with with a spirit of witchcraft. I'm evidently not pursuing God either, but pursuing prestige and power. JGIG, this is so not the case.
It is hard to imagine less gracious words. You asked Phil36 "WHAT preachers? NAME them. SHOW EXAMPLES of their lack of grace." Well, I think we have examples here.

To whom was 1 John 1:8-9 written?
There is absolutely no evidence that John addressed unbelieving gnostics in 1 John 1:5-10. Nothing grammatical, contextual, historical, scriptural, or otherwise. That is an idea invented by Joseph Prince.
I get the feeling that many (most?) new.modern.hyper grace believers came out of hyper legalistic churches, and are now swinging the other way in hyper fashion. Thus their false dichotomy that views life through the "lens" of their former spiritual abuse, and their straw man argument that is based on their former enslavement.
Your ignorance is showing as usual. I have an old NIV study bible of mine right here in my hand, which was published before Prince was even born I imagine, and right in the introduction to first John it explains, “John’s readers were confronted with an early form of Gnostic teaching of the Cerinthian variety…."
You mean like the Apostle Paul?
I suppose you are 100% correct.
Although I didn't go to a hyper legalistic church. I just read the bible, esp Matthew 5 and tried to be under "hyper" legalism.
It's after failing miserably that I found "hyper" Grace.
That's not in question. John was obviously addressing gnostic teachings that had infiltrated the church, but he wasn't addressing gnostics themselves because they had already left the church.
Children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. But [they went out], in order that it might be shown that all of them are not of us. 1 John 2:18-19
Thanks for proving my point further.![]()
You mean like the Apostle Paul?
I suppose you are 100% correct.
Although I didn't go to a hyper legalistic church. I just read the bible, esp Matthew 5 and tried to be under "hyper" legalism.
It's after failing miserably that I found "hyper" Grace.
LOL. Then you have been arguing with yourself this whole time. LOL.
You mean like the Apostle Paul?
I suppose you are 100% correct.
Although I didn't go to a hyper legalistic church. I just read the bible, esp Matthew 5 and tried to be under "hyper" legalism.
It's after failing miserably that I found "hyper" Grace.
So you follow the teachings of new.modern.hyper grace?