The False Teaching of Hyper Grace

Titus 2:11-14
For the grace of god has appeared, bringing salvation to all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Brothers and sisters I have no desire to start a theological debate. But when I see some in this forum exouse a view if hyper grace I must sound a warning and speak out.

Let me say at the outset better men than I are addressing this erroneous teacbing. Among them are Michael Brown and David Ravenhill, son of Leonard Ravenhill. I would direct you to their works.

At its core hyper grace is the belief that one's sins in the past, present, and future are all covered st the cross. You only confess your sins once. When you come to Christ. After that there is no need to confess your sins on an ongoing basis as it is all under the blood. If you sin or convicted by the Holy Spirit of sin you just say its all under the blood.

The error in this teaching is there is no motive for holiness. No need to walk ina Spirit filled eway before Christ. Indeed no need for one to pick up the cross. No need to crucify the flesh on a daily basis. No need to be filled with the Spirit on an ongoing basis. To suggest such things is talk of legalism

The biggest proponents of hyper grace are Joseph Prince and Joel Olstein. They propogate a false gospel that tickles the flesh and de he's the cross of Jesus Christ. Indeed to pack thousands into their churches show that what is being preached is not the cross of Jesus Christ. If it were the cross only a few would respond.

The verses quoted above declare the true grace of God. It ks a grace that saves but also a grace that teaches us to walk in practical holiness. It us a grace that that brings us to a cross we must pick up. We must pick it up daily. We must die daily to our flesh by the cross of Jesus Christ.

Christ has redeemed for himself a people zealous for good works. Works of holiness that flow out of a heart transformed by Christ.

Saints God's grace is anything but cheap. It cost his one and only Son. If anyone thinjs God gave his Son that we might continue to live sinful lives. Then I solemky say to such a person you are very, very, very decieved. I would solemly say to you to repent and turn to Christ.

The true grace of God is not cheap. It required a cross. It requires a sacrrifice. That sacrifice was Jesus. It requires us to believe and take up that cross to follow Jesus.

Posted by Bearmaster.

In Jude we are warned of people who come into the body turning the grace of God into a license for sin. Though the hyper grace proponents will not admit this. The upshot of this teachibg will lead to this. To suggest one maintain a walk of holiness and guard one's heart is legalistic to these folks. Indeed I have heard such expressed in tbis forum.

Thus if one assumes they are under the righteousness of Christ. Why not sin. I mean its all under the blood. The New Testament screams out NO NO NO. This is not the true grace of God.

Bearmaster.

Brothers and sisters I have no desire to start a theological debate. But when I see some in this forum exouse a view if hyper grace I must sound a warning and speak out. bearmaster

Brother you should name these dogs! I'll get the rope and you make the list. Tonight we'll have a hanging.

I believe this is what is known as emotional nonsense. Or should I just hang myself? Hyper Grace sounds like the flavour of summer on LSD. Or perhaps a few words, convoluted to sell books. Or perhaps…..you get the picture brother!

There is nothing being said or sold right now which has not be said and sold before. Most of it is unhelpful because its riven with condemnation and a lack of compassion. Still with posts like this one how easy is compassion to ignore? Well brother is that my post or yours. No matter its all just become a game of words anyway. The rest as they say is a matter of discernment. As long as we kick the dog on the way out all will be well!

Here is a useful link which I believe does help to make sense of this issue of "hyper grace" theology as it is being termed. Chapter four and chapter five are especially useful. I don't agree with much of this article because some of those who are praised have been as much responsible for the circumstances which have lead to a direct teaching which asserts that there is no need to confess ones daily sins.

The conclusion given as to the consequences of not confessing daily sins it will be noted, in Chapter two "How To Poison A Really Smart Dog", is played down in some senses in favour of a concern for a nation. yet apart from the national consequence which lies at the heart of the message for the USA itself, the simple point has to do with the consequences on individuals. When dealing with one another or presenting our message we must surly keep the individual believer in mind.

The Comment: Individual consequence

"This is one of Satan’s most effective ways of deceiving God’s children into developing insensitivity of heart, crippling their ability to be led by the Holy Spirit and potentially leading to tragedy or even premature death." (Chapter Two)

It may be noted that this for the individual is the only consequence given when the one being spoken of is a true believer.

The most singular reality of concern lies in the matter of a nation and not the church itself.

The comment: National consequence

"America is engrossed in the worst sin in her history. Without repentance she faces an uncertain future."

"The Hyper-Grace error of 'Christians need not repent for their sins because they are automatically forgiven by the Blood of Jesus' is the most dangerous message we could accept in this crucial hour. Christians must strongly reject it.

"Hyper-Grace teaching may be sincere, but it is sincerely wrong. It is a very real threat to God's future provision and protection for America."

"Embrace, love and encourage all people. But do not embrace, love and encourage all doctrine - particularly the doctrine which I refer to as Hyper-Grace."

Pastor John Hamel

If we then go on and add in others realities regarding the apostate church, generational "believers" not being believers at all and talk of a remnant all thrown into the mix, we will end up with just that….a mix and a confusion. In the end no one will be able to separate the threads from the cloth which is thus woven. We would be better to draw the threads and let the Holy Spirit Himself make the garment. If not, the consequence will be to assert that believers are yet likely to perish, a thing which will make for a fearful opportunity for Satan to relentlessly attack believers who have have no true foundation to stand.

In fact herein lies the very substance of reality and the basis why there is a schism in our thinking. It is ironic but the error of encouraging believers to hold to the foundation of eternal salvation is the very same foundation which is then distorted to produce a consequence such as we now have in the USA. It is the US culture which especially has given rise to this error because it is a culture of prosperity. It is written into the very fabric of the constitution. It is the same culture which was embraced after the second world war in South East Asia after the war with Japan. The connections are obvious. On the other hand if we reject the doctrine of eternal salvation we will come to some very different conclusions as to what to make of either those who embrace teachings which wrongly emphasis truths to the point of heresy and we will simply say that they are fit for eternal destruction.

http://www.johnhamelministries.org/Hyper_Grace_Dangerous_Error.htm

The biggest proponents of hyper grace are Joseph Prince and Joel Olstein. They propogate a false gospel that tickles the flesh and de he's the cross of Jesus Christ. Indeed to pack thousands into their churches show that what is being preached is not the cross of Jesus Christ. If it were the cross only a few would respond. Blaine

Given that Joseph Prince is the subject of much of the concern being expressed I took the liberty of actually listing to some of his material. I have never done so before as always I do not follow men. That includes this man. However the following link is a reply by Joseph Prince in 2012 to the concerns being expressed. At least this comes from his own mouth. The start proper of the relevant parts is from approximately 3 mins into the video. The first 30mins to the 30 mins point is one of the most sound and reasonable presentations of the grace of God I have ever heard without any doubt. From the 30 min mark for about 3 mins there is a little bit of flippancy which is questionable then from that point on to the 38 min mark there is another very good exposition of grace, and the law under grace, at which point 38:31 for the next 60 seconds to the 39:33 mark is I believe a point at which discernment needs to come into play.

What is of course completely missing is an reference to the meaning of the cross beyond the childish comprehension that this is the tree upon which Christ died for sin in order to bring us from the teacher (the Law) unto the True Teacher (Christ) and this by grace. I don't doubt at all that this ministry if it is expressed in this message in its fullness would fall short of taking account of the flesh and the need for the continuous reckoning with the flesh. In a nation which is given over to prosperity as well as those nations which are similarly given to a belief in societal prosperity this absence of the meaning of the cross beyond the childish things, would give rise to a foolish attitude and an inclination to disregard the attractiveness of the world and the desires of the natural man.

At 40:31 Joseph says that we become righteous by receiving Christ's righteousness. It has to be said that this is a profound mistake. We are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. Rather we are clothed in Christ Who Himself becomes our righteousness. We have no righteousness of our own. This is not said to be critical. It is said because this man has a real ability to speak and almost without any effort at all vocalises very profound truths. He even makes reference to this fact indirectly when he speaks on "rest", and says "I know I am not that smart". In my own understanding to speak so well on one doctrine of Grace ought to include a proper expression as far as Righteousness is concerned. It seems to me that this message would be better preached to unbelievers principally and let the Holy Spirit teach believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSiBv-ntZd8

Well the Lord knows.

I do not subscribe to this hyper-grace teaching in the slightest. However, I would like to take issue with a few points.

“The error in this teaching is there is no motive for holiness.”

Really? Are we saying that in order for us to be holy, we must have threats so God must (in effect) always be holding a gun to our back saying “Be Holy, or else.” Holiness arising from that kind of fear (though I admit there is a ‘right’ kind of fear) is no holiness at all.

I have never bought the argument that goes “That teaching is wrong because it could cause a licence to sin”. When you think about it, ANY doctrine of forgiveness could cause a licence to sin – if God is willing to forgive sin then anyone could go ahead and do whatever wrong things they like and then come back to God for forgiveness. Such an attitude has nothing to do with believing in forgiveness but actually stems from a heart that is ignorant of Christ.

“They would not understand a term like Hyper-grace. To these men, grace was the water at the end of four days in the desert, the morsel at the end of weeks of mental oppression under the weight of guilt, the sweet relief from being suspended over the flames of Hell.”

Sidewalk (or anyone), would you show where this kind of oppressive preaching is found in scripture? Where in the bible does it say that one must spend a period in agonizing fear before being saved? I am highly disturbed by the, frankly, disgusting doctrine known as ‘preparationism’ where God does not save any one who comes to him, but must make them grovel for a period (which could be indefinite). Do we have a reluctant saviour?

Check out these scriptures (a small selection out of many):

Luke 15:20
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him."

Luke 18:13-14
“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Luke 23:42-43
“Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."

John 6:37
"Those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."

Matthew 11:28-30
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

Acts 2:21
"And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved"

Acts 16:31
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Acts 8:35-36
"Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”

1 John 1:9
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness."

Do any of these not suggest that salvation/forgiveness is available instantly for anyone who sincerely comes to Jesus?

Philip was evidently wrong to have baptized the Eunuch there an then. He should have have told him to go home and grovel to God to save him (Paul Washer style).

Likewise, John should have added on the end of that last verse "though you aren't forgiven until you have a certain 'feeling' that you have been. To simply just believe what I just said at face value would be easy-believism"

I reject hyper-grace/easy-believism kind of teaching and I certainly affirm that there is no salvation without repentance. However, I am highly concerned by some of the teaching that has arisen in direct response.

Sidewalk (or anyone), would you show where this kind of oppressive preaching is found in scripture? Where in the bible does it say that one must spend a period in agonizing fear before being saved? I am highly disturbed by the, frankly, disgusting doctrine known as ‘preparationism’ where God does not save any one who comes to him, but must make them grovel for a period (which could be indefinite). Do we have a reluctant saviour? Butters

COLONIAL AMERICA’S REJECTION OF FREE GRACE THEOLOGY
L. E. BROWN Prescott, Arizona I.

INTRODUCTION

Many Free Grace adherents assume that grace theology, the de facto doctrine of the first century church, was lost until recently. Such is not the case. Michael Makidon has demonstrated, for example, that Free Grace views surfaced in Scotland in the 18th century Marrow Contro- versy.1 The “Marrow Men” were clear: faith is the sole condition of justification, and assurance is the essence of justifying faith.

Eighty years earlier peace was broken in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (MBC) over these doctrines. That upheaval, labeled the “Antinomian Controversy,” occupied the MBC for seventeen months from October 1636 to March 1638. The civil and ecclesiastical trials of Anne Hutchin- son (1591-1643), whose vocal opposition to the “covenant of works” gained unfavorable attention from the civil authorities, and served as a beard for theological adversaries John Cotton (1585-1652) and Thomas Shepard (1605-1649)…………………..

Link: http://goo.gl/FGwCP

If anyone is minded to look into the roots which the colonies have had with this subject this book is a good one. If it is read along with the superscripted notes at the foot of each page it will make much more sense.

For example:

Page 40 Superscript Body Text [3] with footnote "Anne encountered puritan doctrine at St. Botolph’s Church in Boston, England, under the ministry of John Cotton. Cotton’s determination to minimize the role of moral effort in the regenerative process conditioned her against pre- parationism and what today we would call “Lordship” theology. Upon her arrival at the MBC, shortly after Cotton’s, she began embellishing his views at Bible study classes in her home. Her influence in the community grew widely and rapidly, including prominent businessmen and even MBC’s young gover- nor, Henry Vane."

Page 41 Superscript Body Text [10] with foot notes "Ann Fairfax Withington and Jack Schwartz, “The Political Trial of Anne Hutchinson,” New England Quarterly 51:2 (June 1978), 226-240, cast as an undesirable those whose views were a political threat to the survival of the Commonwealth. Jon Meacham, American Gospel (New York: Random House, 2006), 49-52 and Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States (New York: Sentinel, 2004), 30-34, both cast Hutchinson and her views as a threat to God’s continued blessings to a new society that had willingly entered into a covenant relationship with God. Her view that the believer is not obligated to observe the moral law of the covenant threatened the divine hand of protection upon the MBC at a time when external threats to their continued welfare were widespread. See also Marilyn J. Westerkamp, “Anne Hutchinson, Sectarian Mysticism, and the Puritan Order,” Church History 59:4 (December 1990), 482-496; Edmund S. Morgan, “The Case against Anne Hut- chinson,” The New England Quarterly 10:4 (December 1937), 635-649; Jeffrey M. Kahl, “The Antinomian Controversy and the Puritan Vision: A Historical Perspective on Christian Leadership,” Ashland Theological Journal 35 (2003), 55-72."

The Boston referred to in the above foot note [3] is this one.

http://www.parish-of-boston.org.uk

John Cotton referred to above is in this connection.

http://www.lincs-reformed-church.com/pilgrims.html

And finally the root of all of these concerns ultimately rested on one singe truth. That truth is eternal salvation. This is what concerned the men who framed the church in the USA and it is the concern of those same men who lived separatist lives in the Lincolnshire fens. woulds and marshes. See note [14] in the text.

Nothing has changed. Nothing is new and nothing will change or be new. It has all been said before.

What New Testament grace is.......

Titus 2:11-12
For the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny all ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously, and godly in this present age.

The grace of Jesus Christ saves us and teaches us how to live in a practical holy faith walk before Him.

Where is this grace of Jesus found........

Acts 20:32
Now I commend you to God, and the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

The grace of Jesus Christ that saves and teaches is found in Gid's word, primarily the New Testament.

What New Testament grace is not.......

Romans 6:1-2
What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin so that grace may abound? May it never be!

Grace is not a license to sin. Indeed we read in Jude 4 below.......

For certain persons persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiuisness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

There above are the ones who would pervert true grace of God into a license to sin. This is where the error of so called hyper grace will lead. Michael Brown has out together a collection of horror stories of those who have suffered under this false teaching.

The true grace of Jesus Christ saves but it also sanctifies us and teaches us how to walk in practical holiness before Jesus. This walk being instructed by the Holy Spirit through the New Testament. This walk being done in the power of the Holy Spirit. Herein lies the true grace if God.

Bearmaster.

PS
All verses are from the NASB.

I believe that in this debate about faith and hyper faith there is such a mixing of justification( salvation) and sanctification and works that it ends in , for many folks, total confusion. One would have to have a basic knowledge of what justification is, what sanctification is, and in reference to works, what works is. Once these have been properly defined, much of the debate would become clearer.

Here is a portion of Scripture..........

Php 4:6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.
Php 4:7 And the peace of God which passes all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Php 4:8 Finally, my brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think on these things.
Php 4:9 Do those things which you have also learned and received and heard and seen in me. And the God of peace shall be with you.

Actually, one of my life Scriptures. So, we see two phrases here 1. Be anxious for nothing. 2. Do these things.

1. And if we do these things the Scriptures adds " And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

2. " And the God of peace shall be with you."

Now, these are commands, to do these things, things which the Lord has made possible, things that were formerly impossible. Now let me ask you, does every single Christian that you know walk in a peace that surpasses all understanding? Do you? If not, why not? Can people attain such peace by simply knowing that it exists and remind themselves of it? Or, do we have to choose not to be anxious, trusting rather in Jesus our Saviour? And if we choose to trust, would theological men call that trust,that obedience a work and that be a derogatory term?

Obedience is a vital part of trust, and trust is the foundation of faith, and faith must be exercised. Let not the man who is anxious because of the sin of not trusting God, expect to walk in the peace that surpasses all understanding. This peace has to be reckoned, grasped, has to be possessed. God gave the children of Israel the promised land, but it still had to be taken. Did God fight all of thier battles? Yes. Did He lead and guide and direct? Yes, but it took obedience and a desire to possess all that God had given them, to actually walk in it. This brothers and sister, is just one example of the silliness of hyper grace, that one could walk in a supernatural peace, simply because it exists and is for them, without having to take what was given by obedience............bro Frank

well, if Grace is hyper, then they should stop prescribing her Adderall...its bad medication, and will worsen her condition.

just as a post, Finney's asking if "God loves the unrepentant sinner"...is like throwing hamburger into a shark tank...or is it TULIPS into a Finney tank?

We need tears....not more regurgitated doctrinal cyber scrums....TEARS.....unabashed weeping and wailing....and NOT COOKED UP TEARS!!!

no! REAL TEARS!! this world is burning, and millions are going to hell....many of them your family members!! mine!!

we gotta quit this nonsense...religion.....time is short, time to get real!!!