An Appeal: Lift the ban on Hyper-Grace

[7seasrekeyed]

well that is so

none of the teachers of what we are calling hg say grace is a license to sin and that has been put forth multiple times in posts gone by and it is not correct but no amount of pointing that out ever seem to make a dent. I pointed it out myself and yet those who are going to use it as an argument will continue to do so

again, my entire dislike of the doctrine (because it does seem to be a stand alone when you consider all the rest of the teaching because this teaching covers the entire Bible) is the type of thing Prince does like saying I John 1 is written to Gnostics. and that is just one of the many 'gems' to be found

maybe you do not agree with that, but it should be considered when speaking of HG

 

[Ralph-]

LOL.......... I only pay attention to teachers who preach according to scripture we are "under grace not the law"

Good grief, UG, who's talking about a return to the law??????

Let's get back to what grace actually is according to the Bible. Grace is your ticket to live in freedom from sin, not your license to live in it and to even stop believing and still be saved when Jesus comes back.

I think this bothers a lot of people in the church because they 'aint living for God. They aren't being taught how grace can set them free from sin, and they don't want to give up the love of this world.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

actually Ben, I might change my mind seeing some of the hyperbole in this thread that just creates drama for no reason

I also found that people just ended up talking AT each other...but then what's new in here

 

[Ralph-]

I personally don't even know who Charles Stanley is, and most people that think about hyper-grace think about people like Joseph Prince, Paul Ellis, or... forgot his name. Either way, that isn't a central teaching of hyper-grace, but a teaching or belief of Charles Stanley (in particular). I've heard grace teachers agree with the idea of a person who goes out sinning all they want as either not understanding the grace of God that sets free (its even in the article I linked) or they aren't an actual believer. God's grace isn't a license to sin, and as even the article I linked reads, from such teachings run.

You can think what you want but when they teach 95% truth and then poison everything with the remaining 5%, that 5% does in fact become the central factor in their teaching.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I find Charles Stanley boring but I suppose that is neither here nor there

 

[Ralph-]

I'm calling it the way I sees it. The church loves the message of Hypergrace because it wants God and the world at the same time with no requirement for obedience attached.

If that doesn't apply to anyone reading this thread, good, then I'm not talking about you.

 

[BenFTW]

Good grief, UG, who's talking about a return to the law??????

Let's get back to what grace actually is according to the Bible. Grace is your ticket to live in freedom from sin, not your license to live in it and to even stop believing and still be saved when Jesus comes back.

I think this bothers a lot of people in the church because they 'aint living for God. They aren't being taught how grace can set them free from sin and they don't want to give up the love of this world.

I, as I am sure many, find error in people consoling others who fall away from God and say, "Its okay, OSAS. You're good man, so even if you don't come back, its all good." That is irresponsible of them, and they should repent of those actions and instead encourage the person back into the fold, to walk in God's will for their lives.

You are attempting to make the belief of one person applicable to everyone across the board. That isn't the case, and is a gross generalization. I am sure you are aware that even people within OSAS disagree on little factors, such as those that fall away didn't believe to begin with, or were just professing believers (not true believers), and then the camp that believes as Charles Stanley. It isn't fair to define Charles Stanley's stance on OSAS as the belief system of all teachers under "hyper-grace."

 

[UnderGrace]

Good grief, UG, who's talking about a return to the law??????

Let's get back to what grace actually is according to the Bible. Grace is your ticket to live in freedom from sin, not your license to live in it and to even stop believing and still be saved when Jesus comes back.

I think this bothers a lot of people in the church because they 'aint living for God. They aren't being taught how grace can set them free from sin, and they don't want to give up the love of this world.

Actually hyper grace is based on this very teaching that we are to "live in freedom from sin"

To live under grace is far harder in some ways than to be under the law because we are naturally inclined to self-righteousness, pride, rules and self-effort.

What people are wrongly teaching, what people are wrongly doing and what the Bible teaches are two separate things and you constantly conflate the two.

 

[BenFTW]

well that is so

none of the teachers of what we are calling hg say grace is a license to sin and that has been put forth multiple times in posts gone by and it is not correct but no amount of pointing that out ever seem to make a dent. I pointed it out myself and yet those who are going to use it as an argument will continue to do so

again, my entire dislike of the doctrine (because it does seem to be a stand alone when you consider all the rest of the teaching because this teaching covers the entire Bible) is the type of thing Prince does like saying I John 1 is written to Gnostics. and that is just one of the many 'gems' to be found

maybe you do not agree with that, but it should be considered when speaking of HG

Okay, but that's the issue. It should be considered when speaking of hyper-grace, but how does one endeavor to have this discussion if there is a ban on the topic (when ultimately the ban wasn't even about the topic itself so much so as people's conduct, and the pervasiveness, of the topic, at the time in every thread)?

Its not the craziest idea in the world to permit free speech on a topic that the Body of Christ is being taught.

 

[UnderGrace]

I'm calling it the way I sees it. The church loves the message of Hypergrace because it wants God and the world at the same time with no requirement for obedience attached.

If that doesn't apply to anyone reading this thread, good, then I'm not talking about you.

Your definition of obedience from what I have read is law and rules unless you can clarify.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Okay, but that's the issue. It should be considered when speaking of hyper-grace, but how does one endeavor to have this discussion if there is a ban on the topic (when ultimately the ban wasn't even about the topic itself so much so as people's conduct, and the pervasiveness, of the topic, at the time in every thread)?

Its not the craziest idea in the world to permit free speech on a topic that the Body of Christ is being taught.

then maybe ask how does one curb the behavior?

I'll present this again. in another forum, the manic behavior and name calling is dealt with by banning that individual from that one thread

people can then go on without the rhetoric and intrusive and unproductive behavior

being told you are slandering someone because you disagree is not justified and towards the end, this was a remark pointed at people when they disagreed with a video or copy/paste

I think you might recall that.

and on that note I'll add just posting a vid or copy/pasting is not a discussion

we end up discussing the person in the vid, copy/paste and the rocks fly LOL!


so if a person resorts to ad hominem attacks..give em a chance to alter course and if they insist on crashing and burning, that ta tat
out the thread you go. works good because people think twice next time if they want to be included or just relieved of their seat at the table

 

[BenFTW]

then maybe ask how does one curb the behavior?

I'll present this again. in another forum, the manic behavior and name calling is dealt with by banning that individual from that one thread

people can then go on without the rhetoric and intrusive and unproductive behavior

being told you are slandering someone because you disagree is not justified and towards the end, this was a remark pointed at people when they disagree with a video or copy/paste

I think you might recall that.

so if a person resorts to ad hominem attacks..give em a chance to alter course and if they insist on crashing and burning, that ta tat
out the thread you go. works good because people think twice next time if they want to be included or just relieved of their seat at the table

I like it, I'd put it in the suggestions area of the forum for RoboOp to see. To give the mods the ability to ban people from a thread (in particular).

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I like it, I'd put it in the suggestions area of the forum for RoboOp to see. To give the mods the ability to ban people from a thread (in particular).

I've mentioned it a couple of times . it works great. don't know how difficult it is to do though

then you know, discussion would be feasible. I like a challenge anyway haha

 

[Blain]

I understand where Ben is coming from I mean the topic itself is not the issue but rather how people handle the topic themselves in the debate and discussion. I haven't seen that many attacks and heated war threads in the recent months and maybe people can handle it now or maybe it would turn out the same I don't know. But I do know that should it be un banned it is every persons responsibility to always discuss and debate in a calm mature and Christ like manner. This isn't elementary school almost everyone here has no excuse to act in a hateful child like manner. If we of all people who claim to be in Christ cannot show his heart in our own disputes then something is seriously wrong.

We must be able to not only take another persons view in account but to have a willing and teachable heart, because if we only see and accept what we see and think is the truth then even if the truth is actually presented to us then we will be blind to it and this goes for everything not just this one topic. in every heated debate there will always be those who act as they should not, they will slander mock attack and throw scriptures at you like it's no tomorrow as if every verse they cherry pick is absolute but it's in those times that God's character is needed the most. You would be surprised how a heart can be affect by the heart of God being shown in the midst of a raging war.

So as for it being unbanned I could go either way but I stand by what i have said regardless of the outcome.

 

[BenFTW]

Okay, but that's the issue. It should be considered when speaking of hyper-grace, but how does one endeavor to have this discussion if there is a ban on the topic (when ultimately the ban wasn't even about the topic itself so much so as people's conduct, and the pervasiveness, of the topic, at the time in every thread)?

Its not the craziest idea in the world to permit free speech on a topic that the Body of Christ is being taught.

@RoboOp @Oncefallen @CS1 Wouldn't you, maybe, agree? (being slightly cheeky)

 

[Nehemiah6]

God's grace is hyper , and never ending right now in the age of Grace , really dont understand the opposition to it at all !!!

Because you have not investigated the matter. So take some time to check out the Hyper Grace nonsense.

 

[Karraster]

So, essentially Ben has created a hyper grace thread by asking to lift the ban on hyper grace threads.

 

[BenFTW]

So, essentially Ben has created a hyper grace thread by asking to lift the ban on hyper grace threads.

We should remember that threads need approval before being posted, so this thread was already "approved." I hope they are considering my appeal, not just for the sake of truth, but transparency (being open, allowing us to chat). I think Blain's response is very fitting, we as Christians and adults should exemplify Christ in our discussions. We should be able to discuss topics freely that are circulating around the Body of Christ, with meekness and respect.

 

[Ralph-]

It isn't fair to define Charles Stanley's stance on OSAS as the belief system of all teachers under "hyper-grace."

You don't seem to understand that if grace isn't taught the way Charles Stanley teaches it then it's not 'hyper' grace. Hyper grace is above and beyond the traditional, Biblical teaching about grace. It says grace hyper-extends to even cover going back to not trusting in grace.

Even Calvinism, which was the one and only 'once saved always saved' theology of the church for centuries doesn't agree with that. It says if you leave you were never really saved to begin with. But Hypergrace 'once saved always saved' says you are still saved even though you left because it erroneously concludes that since salvation is by nothing at all (which it isn't) then you can't lose it by doing anything--not even by denying Christ in willful unbelief and a return to the world.

Grace is far reaching, but there is one place it will not hyper-extend to: your return to unbelief. It can and will go everywhere else but it will not follow the person who willfully returns to the world in unbelief and a denial of Christ. But this new generation of people in the church are being taught that it does. And it seems even the old timers are getting on board with it.

 

[blue_ladybug]

Grace is grace, pure and simple. Ain't no hyper, hypo, hype whatever to it..

Grace is grace.. nothing else..