A true Christian is a "follower" of Jesus Christ

[FreeNChrist]

The brood of vipers and serpents are those who are of the serpents seed, those who do the lusts of their father the Devil= seed of evil doers, hypocrites, workers of iniquity, sons of Belial, and many liars and deceivers, even worldly and carnal false teachers who come in the name of Christ but are really of the spirit of this world, and of the Prince of this world, much like InSpiritInTruth.

There, I fixed that for ya.

 

[Chester]

But there is also a movement called “hyper grace” which is spin off of the same false grace message which includes the early beliefs of “Antinomianism.” Here is what their cult leader Joseph Prince teaches about following Jesus Christ’s DOCTRINE= teachings, sayings, and commands…... “21- We can’t take doctrine from the gospels because Jesus had not yet risen from the dead yet.”(end quote)

I am still a bit new to this debate about hyper grace and Joseph Prince - so I am not trying to step in and take sides on the issue.

But the quote above from Joseph Prince really does make me wonder: Is this something that Joseph Prince really said? And if so, is it what is commonly believed and taught by others who teach "hyper-grace"?

I take the entire NT as the basis for doctrine, and especially the words of Christ. Not that I take the words of Christ above Paul, but surely I don't say that Paul supercedes the very words of Christ! Am I misunderstanding or does the context of the quote add something I am missing? Can someone explain this?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

I personally never heard of "MAD teachings" & "Hyper grace" before. The bizarre names reflects it's teachings it seems

I never really experienced many MAD followers until I started posting at this site here--->>>>Exclusively Christian Theology

Just take a quick look in the Christian theology section and see all the topics with the MAD header in the post title. It's crazy, it's like a flood of MAD cult followers have over run that forum. The falling away from the faith is in full swing! LOL

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

I am still a bit new to this debate about hyper grace and Joseph Prince - so I am not trying to step in and take sides on the issue.

But the quote above from Joseph Prince really does make me wonder: Is this something that Joseph Prince really said? And if so, is it what is commonly believed and taught by others who teach "hyper-grace"?

I take the entire NT as the basis for doctrine, and especially the words of Christ. Not that I take the words of Christ above Paul, but surely I don't say that Paul supercedes the very words of Christ! Am I misunderstanding or does the context of the quote add something I am missing? Can someone explain this?

I didn't look into this stuff until I heard some hyper grace followers say Jesus' words are not a part of the NT. I was shocked to hear anyone say this, but when you see who they are getting these ideas from, then you will see they are really just following the false teachings of men. When you can match up their words and ideas with Joseph Princes, then you know where they are getting them from, and it's not from God or the Holy Spirit that is for sure.

 

[FreeNChrist]

I am still a bit new to this debate about hyper grace and Joseph Prince - so I am not trying to step in and take sides on the issue.

But the quote above from Joseph Prince really does make me wonder: Is this something that Joseph Prince really said? And if so, is it what is commonly believed and taught by others who teach "hyper-grace"?

I take the entire NT as the basis for doctrine, and especially the words of Christ. Not that I take the words of Christ above Paul, but surely I don't say that Paul supercedes the very words of Christ! Am I misunderstanding or does the context of the quote add something I am missing? Can someone explain this?

"The Resurrection, and its consequences were the "gospel" or good news which the Christian brought: what we call the 'gospels,' the narratives of Our Lord's life and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracles of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it. Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it."


-C. S. Lewis

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

There, I fixed that for ya.

Changing peoples words in quotes is evil, and those who do such should be banned.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Changing peoples words in quotes is evil, and those who do such should be banned.

Just keeping it real, dude.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Post #4 describes your so-called ministry which is NOT from the Holy Spirit -

I agree, post #4 is from you trying to misrepresent me, so I agree post #4 is not from the Holy Spirit.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Just keeping it real, dude.

Evil is as evil does.

 

[FreeNChrist]

Evil is as evil does.

Right. But don't be so hard on yourself, there is still hope for you.

 

[Chester]

"The Resurrection, and its consequences were the "gospel" or good news which the Christian brought: what we call the 'gospels,' the narratives of Our Lord's life and death, were composed later for the benefit of those who had already accepted the gospel. They were in no sense the basis of Christianity: they were written for those already converted. The miracles of the Resurrection, and the theology of that miracle, comes first: the biography comes later as a comment on it. Nothing could be more unhistorical than to pick out selected sayings of Christ from the gospels and to regard those as the datum and the rest of the New Testament as a construction upon it."


-C. S. Lewis

I am not sure I like what C.S. Lewis is saying either, but there is truth in realizing that the words of Christ are given in the context of his disciples prior to the birth of the church.

But saying that "the theology of that miracle comes first"? What is the "theology of that miracle? - the very words of Christ are the very core and basis of all that happens in the resurrection! To make the words of Paul the foundation and putting aside the very words of Christ simply doesn't make sense!

I am not trying to argue to make "selected sayings of Christ" the datum and the rest of the NT a construction upon it. I have seen that error as well - and I don't agree.

For myself, I will take all of the NT as the equally inspired Word of God and I believe that all of it is and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - II Tim. 3:16

I think it is very dangerous to say that "we can't take doctrine from the gospels"! Again, I ask - Did Joseph Prince actually say this? Is this what he believes?

 

[FreeNChrist]

I am not sure I like what C.S. Lewis is saying either, but there is truth in realizing that the words of Christ are given in the context of his disciples prior to the birth of the church.

But saying that "the theology of that miracle comes first"? What is the "theology of that miracle? - the very words of Christ are the very core and basis of all that happens in the resurrection! To make the words of Paul the foundation and putting aside the very words of Christ simply doesn't make sense!

I am not trying to argue to make "selected sayings of Christ" the datum and the rest of the NT a construction upon it. I have seen that error as well - and I don't agree.

For myself, I will take all of the NT as the equally inspired Word of God and I believe that all of it is and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" - II Tim. 3:16

I think it is very dangerous to say that "we can't take doctrine from the gospels"! Again, I ask - Did Joseph Prince actually say this? Is this what he believes?

You don't have to like what Lewis said, but you had better heed it. The "gospels" are narratives written in support of the doctrinal books, not the other way around. Most of the misunderstandings people have about the NT comes from not recognizing that one simple fact.

 

[Chester]

You don't have to like what Lewis said, but you had better heed it. The "gospels" are narratives written in support of the doctrinal books, not the other way around. Most of the misunderstandings people have about the NT comes from not recognizing that one simple fact.

I am not trying to say it is the "other way around" - that is - that the Gospels are first.

I am saying that both the Gospels and the epistles are the inspired Word of God and are profitable for doctrine.

 

[FreeNChrist]

I am not trying to say it is the "other way around" - that is - that the Gospels are first.

I am saying that both the Gospels and the epistles are the inspired Word of God and are profitable for doctrine.

If you take your "doctrine" from the narratives at best you will be a good Jew. And being a good Jew never saved anyone.

 

[heavenly_bound]

I am still a bit new to this debate about hyper grace and Joseph Prince - so I am not trying to step in and take sides on the issue.

But the quote above from Joseph Prince really does make me wonder: Is this something that Joseph Prince really said? And if so, is it what is commonly believed and taught by others who teach "hyper-grace"?

I take the entire NT as the basis for doctrine, and especially the words of Christ. Not that I take the words of Christ above Paul, but surely I don't say that Paul supercedes the very words of Christ! Am I misunderstanding or does the context of the quote add something I am missing? Can someone explain this?

yes you can take the words of Christ as the bases for doctrine if you can rightly divide the world of truth; that is; if you can differentiate between what Christ said (during his earthly ministry) to the Jews and what he said to His church that would come latter( after His death burial resurrection Ascension and session). i say this because many get into the synoptic gospels and just get from them every word that the Lord spoke forgetting that He was the minister to the circumcision while on earth. He had to teach the law because all the Jews knew was the law. He couldn't teach them His advance teachings which were based His redemptive work on the cross. in Fact His disciples whom he had trained for three and a half years could not understand him when he tried to teach them about His redemptive work. they only believed after the Resurrection..
Christ His asscention into heaven, had to come back to earth to give Paul the mystery behind his salvific work.Therefore according to me, the teachings of the apostles( especially Paul's) are what is to be used to establish the doctrine of the church of Christ. By the way the 4 gospels (the eye witness accounts of Christ earthly ministry),were written for the sake of the epistles and not vice versa

 

[Chester]

yes you can take the words of Christ as the bases for doctrine if you can rightly divide the world of truth; that is; if you can differentiate between what Christ said (during his earthly ministry) to the Jews and what he said to His church that would come latter( after His death burial resurrection Ascension and session). i say this because many get into the synoptic gospels and just get from them every word that the Lord spoke forgetting that He was the minister to the circumcision while on earth. He had to teach the law because all the Jews knew was the law. He couldn't teach them His advance teachings which were based His redemptive work on the cross. in Fact His disciples whom he had trained for three and a half years could not understand him when he tried to teach them about His redemptive work. they only believed after the Resurrection..
Christ His asscention into heaven, had to come back to earth to give Paul the mystery behind his salvific work.Therefore according to me, the teachings of the apostles( especially Paul's) are what is to be used to establish the doctrine of the church of Christ. By the way the 4 gospels (the eye witness accounts of Christ earthly ministry),were written for the sake of the epistles and not vice versa

Ah! Some good points here - you say that doctrine can be taken from the Gospels - if it is correctly understood -- I have no quibbles with that - in fact - you have to understand the context of any writing to take doctrine from it.

And so you are disagreeing with what Joseph Prince said when he said - that doctrine can not be taken from the Gospels.

I don't agree that "especially Paul's" writings are the basis of doctrine! I could get quite vehement about that - but I guess I won't! I am not trying to minimize Paul's writings - absolutely not! I am simply arguing that all of Scripture is profitable for doctrine.

 

[Grace777x70]

I am still a bit new to this debate about hyper grace and Joseph Prince - so I am not trying to step in and take sides on the issue.

But the quote above from Joseph Prince really does make me wonder: Is this something that Joseph Prince really said? And if so, is it what is commonly believed and taught by others who teach "hyper-grace"?

I take the entire NT as the basis for doctrine, and especially the words of Christ. Not that I take the words of Christ above Paul, but surely I don't say that Paul supercedes the very words of Christ! Am I misunderstanding or does the context of the quote add something I am missing? Can someone explain this?

I have watched Prince many times in the past and I have never heard that statement before about "not taking doctrine from the gospels". There is the rightly dividing of scriptures too in relation to who is being spoken too. If Jesus was talking to a Pharisee - Jesus would say "you whitewashed tomb" but He never spoke that to His disciples so to try to "apply" that to believers in Christ would be not proper doctrine.

I don't agree with everything any preacher says including Prince but he is right on with the gospel of the grace of Christ. I don't even expect to agree with myself 5 years from now on everything I believe now. I'm constantly repenting as I learn new truths about the Lord Jesus Christ and His great salvation.

What many of these self-proclaimed heretic hunter websites are saying is "their interpretation" of what is being said - when you go back to the horse's mouth we find something totally different.

There are lot's of self-proclaimed heretic hunters on the internet. To them everyone is a heretic.

There are websites dedicated to the heretic Billy Graham. Billy Sunday, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Stanley, D.L. Moody, C.S. Lewis, John McArthur, Paul Washer, Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson, Martin Luther, John Calvin..etc..basically anyone who is known has a website dedicated to their "heresies"

There are even websites dedicated to the heretic apostle Paul because his epistles "conflict" with some of Jesus' words.

Basically these self-proclaimed heretic hunters have a beef about some thing with what someone else believes and so they are now "heretics". "If people don't believe the way that they do - they are heretics and they try to prove it with "their" version of what the scriptures say.."

It's the nature of the beast.

Where these types cross the line is when they turn a disagreement that they have with someone doctrinally on a secondary issue and turn it into "So and so is a heretic/satanist/controlled by a demon" type stuff.

 

[Chester]

If you take your "doctrine" from the narratives at best you will be a good Jew. And being a good Jew never saved anyone.

So the disciples who had heard only Christ's words and had not yet heard Paul's words were at "best good Jews" - and not saved yet! ????? Just kidding . . . but this really does not make any sense at all - to put the words of Paul as a foundation over the words of Jesus . . .

 

[Chester]

I have watched Prince many times in the past and I have never heard that statement before about "not taking doctrine from the gospels". There is the rightly dividing of scriptures too in relation to who is being spoken too. If Jesus was talking to a Pharisee - Jesus would say "you whitewashed tomb" but He never spoke that to His disciples so to try to "apply" that to believers in Christ would be not proper doctrine.

I don't agree with everything any preacher says including Prince but he is right on with the gospel of the grace of Christ. I don't even expect to agree with myself 5 years from now on everything I believe now. I'm constantly repenting as I learn new truths about the Lord Jesus Christ and His great salvation.

What many of these self-proclaimed heretic hunter websites are saying is "their interpretation" of what is being said - when you go back to the horse's mouth we find something totally different.

There are lot's of self-proclaimed heretic hunters on the internet. To them everyone is a heretic.

There are websites dedicated to the heretic Billy Graham. Billy Sunday, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Stanley, D.L. Moody, C.S. Lewis, John McArthur, Paul Washer, Joseph Prince, Bill Johnson, Martin Luther, John Calvin..etc..basically anyone who is known has a website dedicated to their "heresies"

There are even websites dedicated to the heretic apostle Paul because his epistles "conflict" with some of Jesus' words.

Basically these self-proclaimed heretic hunters have a beef about some thing with what someone else believes and so they are now "heretics". "If people don't believe the way that they do - they are heretics and they try to prove it with "their" version of what the scriptures say.."

It's the nature of the beast.

Where these types cross the line is when they turn a disagreement that they have with someone doctrinally on a secondary issue and turn it into "So and so is a heretic/satanist/controlled by a demon" type stuff.

Grace 777x77 - I don't always agree with you, but I do respect your attitudes and approach . . .

Are you saying that
(1) You don't know if Joseph Prince said this - to not take doctrine from the Gospels
(2) If he did say it, that you and others who believe in "hyper grace" would disagree

 

[heavenly_bound]

I didn't look into this stuff until I heard some hyper grace followers say Jesus' words are not a part of the NT.s I was shocked to hear anyone say this, but when you see who they are getting these ideas from, then you will see they are really just following the false teachings of men. When you can match up their words and ideas with Joseph Princes, then you know where they are getting them from, and it's not from God or the Holy Spirit that is for sure.

yes bro it is true. what Christ taught during His earthly ministry,doesn't fall under the new testament. see this, a testament is only valid after the death of the testator. so can you see that pls? by the way Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry was the minister of the circumcision that is the Jews ( Rom 15:8)