The neo-Gnostic spirit of New.Modern.Hyper Grace

[PeterJens]

None of them has said morality doesn't matter.

Unfortunately they have said morality is irrelevant. All that matters is being in Christ.

I hate this circular rubbish. Because it is not communication it is merely dispute.
Put simply if you love Jesus you will obey His commands. The obedience is because you are saved and transformed, empowered by the work He has done in your heart.

If you cannot agree that or do it, you do not know Jesus. It is that simple.

It sounds to me like many in the hyper-grace camp are Jesus rejects, or self imposed legalists. Well I have never been one.

I doubt greatly "They have left behind" anything, they seem blind deaf and dumb to the words of Christ.

 

[JGIG]

As you wish:

• Is 1 John 1 for Believers or Unbelievers? – Escape to Reality

-JGIG

That website states that John addressed only non-Christians in 1 John 1. That in no way contradicts what I said.

An excerpt:

But first, let me challenge two traditional arguments used to suggest that 1 John 1, and particularly verse 9, is meant for Christians.

1. The New Testament church letters are for saints not sinners

Really? You don’t think they were meant for churches? Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian and in the New Testament churches there were plenty of people who were not saved.

I’m thinking of the “false brothers who infiltrated our ranks” (Gal 2:4) and the false teachers, false apostles, and false prophets who seemed to follow Peter and Paul everywhere they went.

We have this rose-tinted view of the early church as a place of harmony and accord. In reality those churches were fractious battlegrounds between Christians, Pharisees, Judaizers, and outright crooks. Read the middle chapter of Peter’s second letter and you will find repeated warnings pertaining to false teachers who deny the sovereign Lord, who live in error and are slaves of depravity. Where are these heretics? They are not out in the world; they are in here “among the people” (2 Pet 2:1).

How about the antichrist? I bet you can’t guess where he lives. Well for starters, there’s more than one antichrist since anyone who denies Jesus is the Christ is an antichrist (1 Joh 2:22). You may be surprised to learn that these antichrists aren’t found in Rome or Washington DC but are among the church. “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us” (1 Joh 2:18-19).

The wonderful thing about church groups is that they are open. Everyone is welcome. But not everyone who comes loves Jesus. Every preacher knows this and tailors their message accordingly. They’ll have something for the saint and something for the sinner. The epistle writers are no different.
​

I differ with Paul Ellis in that I don't think that 1 John 1 was addressed ONLY to unbelieving Gnostics - I believe that it was PRIMARILY addressed to unbelieving Gnostics, but penned with believers who had been INFLUENCED by the Gnostics in their midst. And judging from Ellis' last paragraph excerpted above, I think if you asked him, he'd agree with me.

As I've said before, the Gospel gives Life to the Lost and corrects error among believers, and that's what I believe John was doing when he wrote 1 John 1.

-JGIG

 

[PeterJens]

In western philosophy there has been a trend at reductionism.

This means to layer an argument with the most important points first, and then expand the concept outwards.

Rather than do this, everything is long winded and contorted because everything has to be presented as traditional with a twist. Most will not notice the twist or deception, but it is plainly there.

If I say to you "I love you" it means "I love you". Implicit within this is I desire the best for you and care when you are hurt.
If God says you have to repent of sin, and offer a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, that is what you have to do.
If Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, then the sin is dealt with once for all. But this still means repentance is still required and everything else. It is why God put the temple there and made everything so set and concrete over 1,500 years.

It is not something minor it is the whole framework of redemption and sanctification. It is why Paul was still a pharisee after his conversion, it did not invalidate what He was in Israel, it fulfilled it.

 

[JGIG]

Let's get practical about some things:

• For HRFTD's OP and assertion that John could have only been writing to believers in 1 John 1, he would have to know without a doubt that the recipient's of John's letter were ALL believers. Every. Single. One.
  
  Not being a personal witness of the time, that's simply not possible, so HRFTD cannot be considered to be an authoritative on that point.

• When New Testament letters went out, they went out to congregationS - they were passed around and copied so that as many local bodies could benefit as possible - that's one reason we have our New Covenant Scriptures today - LOTS of copies of apostolic letters got made!

• Here's the thing: Like with any church one can walk into today - there are believers, AND *gasp* unbelievers in the mix. And even maybe a few heretics!
  
  While I also was not a personal witness of the time, this position is also not authoritative, but it is a much more credible assumption/scenario because we know that not every bottom that sits in a congregation is a saved bottom just because they're sitting there .

• John knew this - and wrote his letter accordingly.
  
  That's why soooo many scholars (see posts 1143-47) say that John was defending the faith against Gnosticism.
  
  Could there have been Gnostics in the congregations to whom John was writing? Absolutely!
  
  And John knew that, and wrote accordingly, using the polite, 'we', because, while Gnostics were not part of the local Body [of Christ], they were part of the local congregation, and were influencing the Body because they were in the congregation.

• And John DID preach the Gospel, because the Gospel brings Life to the Lost and corrects error in the believer, which is what the letter was all about.

-JGIG

This is ridiculous. Letters were sent to churches of believers. Whether there were unbelievers there or not is irrelevant. There is no evidence that John addressed unbelievers specifically. Red herring.

Pure assumption. You have no evidence for this. It's simply something that new.modern.grace believers are desperate to believe, because their whole doctrine falls apart without it.

Practical? No. Desperate? Yes.

If there weren't unbelievers (Gnostics) in their midst influencing the local Body, why did John need to address the errors of Gnosticism?

How about Paul, who clearly stated, "4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." and then wrote an entire letter to the Galatians correcting the error of the "false believers who had infiltrated our ranks"?

Do you (does anybody) really believe that the letter was secretly passed around to only those who they were sure were believers? Or did they have a super-secret handshake or a password to get into the room where the letter would be read, making sure that only real believers would hear it? Is that really what you're asking us to swallow?

No, what I've written above is a very practical approach.

Start defending your position with Scripture and some sound hermeneutics, HRFTD. You're better than this.

-JGIG

 

[JGIG]

Very first post (not OP) made in Obsession with confession(1st John 1:9,sin confession) thread:


Subsequent post by HeRose, still on page one:

Looks consistent to me.



I have gone to page seven of that thread and re-examined every post that HeRose made and see nothing suggesting what you say, FreeNChrist. It is more clearly stated on page eight, though:

Oh good Lord this thread is long enough without bringing another thread into it - take it to PMs if you really need to prove your point.

 

[JGIG]

Come on, JGIG. You haven't read the book, for starters, so can't conclude what I'm agreeing to (other than the one point I mentioned), the "projecting" idea is a furphy and what the guy says in his introduction is anything but "gracious, seasoned with salt". And (dare I say it?), if he were discerning he wouldn't be holding this view.

What's a 'furphy'?

 

[PeterJens]

Hey guys, I got a great idea.

If you want real spiritual wisdom go to a self confessed ex-legalist and find out how he managed to silence his over active conscience by ignoring it.

No. You go to someone who can actually balanced out righteousness with grace and mercy, who can love the sinner and forgive their enemy and praise the Lord in the face of persecution. Now their faith is of real value, and their lessons worthy of being heard.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If there weren't unbelievers (Gnostics) in their midst influencing the local Body, why did John need to address the errors of Gnosticism?

How about Paul, who clearly stated, "4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." and then wrote an entire letter to the Galatians correcting the error of the "false believers who had infiltrated our ranks"?

Do you (does anybody) really believe that the letter was secretly passed around to only those who they were sure were believers? Or did they have a super-secret handshake or a password to get into the room where the letter would be read, making sure that only real believers would hear it? Is that really what you're asking us to swallow?

No, what I've written above is a very practical approach.

Start defending your position with Scripture and some sound hermeneutics, HRFTD. You're better than this.

-JGIG

Whether 'gnostics' were still in the congregation that John wrote to is irrelevant. He was writing to all believers to teach them truths that the apostles had learned from Jesus, so that they wouldn't be led astray by heretical teachings and sin.

 

[JGIG]

If there weren't unbelievers (Gnostics) in their midst influencing the local Body, why did John need to address the errors of Gnosticism?

How about Paul, who clearly stated, "4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you." and then wrote an entire letter to the Galatians correcting the error of the "false believers who had infiltrated our ranks"?

Do you (does anybody) really believe that the letter was secretly passed around to only those who they were sure were believers? Or did they have a super-secret handshake or a password to get into the room where the letter would be read, making sure that only real believers would hear it? Is that really what you're asking us to swallow?

No, what I've written above is a very practical approach.

Start defending your position with Scripture and some sound hermeneutics, HRFTD. You're better than this.

-JGIG

Whether 'gnostics' were still in the congregation that John wrote to is irrelevant. He was writing to all believers to teach them truths that the apostles had learned from Jesus, so that they wouldn't be led astray by heretical teachings and sin.

It's totally relevant, and don't look now, but your position is crumbling . . . you're opening up to the possibility that Gnostics were in the audience .

-JGIG

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

It's totally relevant, and don't look now, but your position is crumbling . . . you're opening up to the possibility that Gnostics were in the audience .

-JGIG

It's irrelevant. Neither you nor I can possibly know what the makeup of the church was. There is no evidence for your position that verses 5-10 in 1 John were written to anyone but the church, and therefore the teaching was for everyone in the church to follow.

 

[Magenta]

Oh good Lord this thread is long enough without bringing another thread into it - take it to PMs if you really need to prove your point.

I was not the person who brought the other thread into this conversation. Did you scold the other person? No? Why not? They made claims they refused to back up with evidence. I provided evidence proving they were wrong. That is how debates are carried on. One person makes a claim and somebody either agrees or disagrees. Sometimes people make wild accusations. If they do, they should be prepared to back them up. I am sorry you find this disagreeable. It has everything to do with the topic at hand, so I am not going to take it to PM. And what point were you trying to prove to upbraid me? That I was somehow out of line? Why did you not follow your own advice and privately message me?

 

[sydlit]

Maybe 'we' need to step back and remember
that ultimately it is not 'Johns' word, but Gods' Word,
and He knows who would read it.

Sometimes the 'we' is John and his fellow eyewitnesses,
sometimes it's the 'we' who were being talked to at the time,
believers or not, sometimes it's the 'we' who are reading it today.

Though it's good to search the deep things of God,
and iron sharpens iron, we do well to do it through
Encouraging each other and building each other up in the faith,
and I wonder if after all this time spent on this thread,
if God isn't just a little bit 'smacking His OWN head'
seeing His sons and daughters arguing and separating
each other over the main thing He gave us all to unite in,
and that is His love, by His grace,
in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

So many are hurting, within and without the Body of Christ.
(And I am one of them, no one even knows how much).
How can any of us give or receive the help that's needed
if we spend so much time arguing over the grace of God?
I'm sorry if I'm out of line.
If 'we' are accepting each other in love
as brothers and sisters in Christ, then I'm sorry for interrupting.

For what it's worth, I believe Jesus saves us
because of His love, not for any good thing that is in us.
Saved by His grace,
kept by His grace,
brought home by His grace.
'We' Thank you, our Father,
in the name of Jesus. Amen.
Carry on.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I

Unfortunately they have said morality is irrelevant. All that matters is being in Christ.

I hate this circular rubbish. Because it is not communication it is merely dispute.
Put simply if you love Jesus you will obey His commands. The obedience is because you are saved and transformed, empowered by the work He has done in your heart.

If you cannot agree that or do it, you do not know Jesus. It is that simple.

It sounds to me like many in the hyper-grace camp are Jesus rejects, or self imposed legalists. Well I have never been one.

I doubt greatly "They have left behind" anything, they seem blind deaf and dumb to the words of Christ.

Yes, if you love Him you will obey His commands. This works in the same way way that "blessed are the poor in spirit" works. We don't read blessed are the poor in spirit and say, well then, I will work to become poor in spirit so that God will bless me! We are all completely destitute in Spirit to begin with. The blessing is to be given the sight to SEE that we are. A way to paraphrase the verse is to say this: God blesses those who realize their poverty.

So if we love Him we will obey His commands works the same way. It says we WILL, not we MUST.
Is my drift coming through or did I just confuse you?

 

[JGIG]

I was not the person who brought the other thread into this conversation. Did you scold the other person? No? Why not? They made claims they refused to back up with evidence. I provided evidence proving they were wrong. That is how debates are carried on. One person makes a claim and somebody either agrees or disagrees. Sometimes people make wild accusations. If they do, they should be prepared to back them up. I am sorry you find this disagreeable. It has everything to do with the topic at hand, so I am not going to take it to PM. And what point were you trying to prove to upbraid me? That I was somehow out of line? Why did you not follow your own advice and privately message me?

Because he dropped it after explaining his position.

I'm totally cool with you hashing it out. But this thread with its own topic, is over 1250 post and running . . . give us a break, will ya? Take it somewhere else.

-JGIG

 

[PeterJens]

It's totally relevant, and don't look now, but your position is crumbling . . . you're opening up to the possibility that Gnostics were in the audience .
-JGIG

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin.
1 John 2:1

John is clearly stating some simple realities.
1. We are all sinners.
2. Jesus purifies us from sin and we can walk in the light.
3. If we walk in the light we will not sin again
4. If we fail and sin, we have forgiveness through Jesus is we confess our sin.
5. We know we are righteous and walk with Jesus because we keep His commands

Now it cannot be plainer. But hyper-grace wants to deny these words.
The problem with words is either they are true for all believers or they are lies.
There is no caviate to say only for believers who face a certain heresy.
John is simply saying this is the walk of following Jesus.

But if that was so hyper-grace is a lie. So hyper-grace is a lie. End of story.

 

[PeterJens]

Prosperity gospel down the tubes

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.
John 2:15

Love success, your houses, your relaxation, your self indulgence, you deserve it all and even more, and God agrees.

No he does not. John is saying you literally do not know Jesus.

 

[PeterJens]

If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.
John 2:29

This verse is simple. The testimony to Gods presence is a group of believers is they do what is right.
So condemning the righteous is simply satans lies, handed to lost souls on a plate to fling at the followers of Jesus.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Very first post (not OP) made in Obsession with confession(1st John 1:9,sin confession) thread:


Subsequent post by HeRose, still on page one:

Looks consistent to me.



I have gone to page seven of that thread and re-examined every post that HeRose made and see nothing suggesting what you say, FreeNChrist. It is more clearly stated on page eight, though:

Wrong thread. And even then you took the belief of the one he was responding to and tried to make it appear as though it was his own belief. Naughty, naughty.

 

[JGIG]

Wrong thread. And even then you took the belief of the one he was responding to and tried to make it appear as though it was his own belief. Naughty, naughty.

Seriously, guys, take it somewhere else please.

 

[Grace777x70]

Great post!..so full of truth and you exhibit your love for our Lord in such an endearing manner. Yes..we love Him because we know Him and will follow Him anywhere He says to go and do by His grace and life in us!

I


Yes, if you love Him you will obey His commands. This works in the same way way that "blessed are the poor in spirit" works. We don't read blessed are the poor in spirit and say, well then, I will work to become poor in spirit so that God will bless me! We are all completely destitute in Spirit to begin with. The blessing is to be given the sight to SEE that we are. A way to paraphrase the verse is to say this: God blesses those who realize their poverty.

So if we love Him we will obey His commands works the same way. It says we WILL, not we MUST.
Is my drift coming through or did I just confuse you?