An Appeal: Lift the ban on Hyper-Grace
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R
Every person in this forum that has ever said you are still saved even if you fall away into unbelief has been talking about Hypergrace. That's why I think Hypergrace was understood in regard to it's prosperity gospel component, not it's 'once saved always saved' component when it was banned from being talked about in the forum.
R
I have stated multiple times that it is the principle of free speech or free discourse that I have made this appeal, that we shouldn't be hindered from discussing a topic that is prevalent in the Body of Christ (either for or against it). The ban was a method used to calm the waters, and let people simmer down, a good portion of which have been banned or moved on. This means it serves no purpose anymore, but to penalize the majority for the prior actions of a few. It is, again, outdated.
There is no particular doctrine I have in mind, it is only a hindrance to discussions that people may desire to have. It makes no sense to ban, at this time, a topic that a good percentage of people agree with, or are intrigued to discuss because of its prevalence in Christian circles. It would be like banning OSAS, or Calvinism, why silence one side of the argument? Again, the ban was not specifically about hyper-grace as it was about the conduct of the people participating in its discussion.
One aspect of hyper-grace I do enjoy discussing, however, is the total forgiveness of sin and assurance of salvation we have through the blood of Christ and Jesus as our High Priest. Yet, I wouldn't care to defend "hyper-grace" in and of itself, but to share openly some of these beliefs that some might term "hyper-grace." I might even endeavor to discuss (because of a conversation I had with my sister and her husband) why God's grace is no license to sin, and total forgiveness of sin doesn't translate to licentiousness.
I see this as black and white, the reason for the ban is over. If anything the conduct of users has transferred from one topic to another, and it should be judged on an individual basis. I understand CS1's initial reasoning for the ban, and it worked. However, it has been two years since the free for all happened.
The issue I have is that there are users on this site that do side with certain beliefs under hyper-grace, and they shouldn't be limited and restrained from expressing those beliefs (as @Oncefallen said that they have never stopped people from expressing themselves in the ban on hyper-grace thread) but sometimes they have to crackdown because it becomes too pervasive, bleeding over into threads not even originally about such topics. Much like OSAS, works, and perseverance is doing nowadays.
As I said before, it isn't the craziest thing in the world to want to be freely available to discuss topics circulating around the Body of Christ, things being taught. Whether we wish to express our disagreement or agreement. To silence such discussion makes no sense, again, because originally the ban had nothing to do with the topic as it did with the people's actions during its discussion. If people can't behave the mods have been given the tools to more than appropriately handle such situations (warnings, bans, etc). They could be even better equipped to give people a time out, or thread-specific ban. Either way, the ban no longer serves a purpose (at least not its original purpose, temporal purpose), it only gives people apprehension from sharing comfortably with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
There is no particular doctrine I have in mind, it is only a hindrance to discussions that people may desire to have. It makes no sense to ban, at this time, a topic that a good percentage of people agree with, or are intrigued to discuss because of its prevalence in Christian circles. It would be like banning OSAS, or Calvinism, why silence one side of the argument? Again, the ban was not specifically about hyper-grace as it was about the conduct of the people participating in its discussion.
One aspect of hyper-grace I do enjoy discussing, however, is the total forgiveness of sin and assurance of salvation we have through the blood of Christ and Jesus as our High Priest. Yet, I wouldn't care to defend "hyper-grace" in and of itself, but to share openly some of these beliefs that some might term "hyper-grace." I might even endeavor to discuss (because of a conversation I had with my sister and her husband) why God's grace is no license to sin, and total forgiveness of sin doesn't translate to licentiousness.
I see this as black and white, the reason for the ban is over. If anything the conduct of users has transferred from one topic to another, and it should be judged on an individual basis. I understand CS1's initial reasoning for the ban, and it worked. However, it has been two years since the free for all happened.
The issue I have is that there are users on this site that do side with certain beliefs under hyper-grace, and they shouldn't be limited and restrained from expressing those beliefs (as @Oncefallen said that they have never stopped people from expressing themselves in the ban on hyper-grace thread) but sometimes they have to crackdown because it becomes too pervasive, bleeding over into threads not even originally about such topics. Much like OSAS, works, and perseverance is doing nowadays.
As I said before, it isn't the craziest thing in the world to want to be freely available to discuss topics circulating around the Body of Christ, things being taught. Whether we wish to express our disagreement or agreement. To silence such discussion makes no sense, again, because originally the ban had nothing to do with the topic as it did with the people's actions during its discussion. If people can't behave the mods have been given the tools to more than appropriately handle such situations (warnings, bans, etc). They could be even better equipped to give people a time out, or thread-specific ban. Either way, the ban no longer serves a purpose (at least not its original purpose, temporal purpose), it only gives people apprehension from sharing comfortably with fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
-
1
- Show all
So, let us review what happened last time.
An individual joins CC, and starts proselytizing for hypergrace. Several people told me they thought he was more than one person, as he was literally posting round the clock. In fact, over 10,000 posts in less than a year. He got pretty upset when I confronted him about that, but I still haven't made 10,000 posts, and I have been a member for 7 1/2 years. Something was horribly off in the numbers.
Second, almost every post was linked to "Escape to Reality" a hyper grace website run by Paul Ellis. Who, incidentally claimed to have theological training, but his Master's Degree was in something totally different. Accounting or something. The person got chastised for constantly linking to this website, which was against forum rules at that time. Although before he was banned, he was back at posting the links.
Suddenly, the Word Faith people joined in, in particular, a woman, who I have not seen in a long time, who put up daily some so-called "devotionals" from Destined to Reign by the master (I use the term loosely) himself, Joseph Prince. I exegeted a couple of them, they had absolutely NO connection to Biblical Christianity. By this time, it seemed like the Word Faith people were getting interested. Because in fact, Joseph Prince, who "invented" this heinous doctrine came out of the Word Faith movement So, there were a lot of common threads.
I started a long post about that, based on what the Bible said. The main person arguing against me, a student in Kenneth Hagin's Rhema Bible school suddenly left. He came back briefly, and said he no longer agreed with Word Faith, or its offshoot - hyper grace.
Meanwhile, as 7seas already said, every single thread, someone brought hyper grace into the thread. Didn't matter the topic, it was soon "all about hypergrace." (Now if that doesn't sound like a personality disorder in the form of a false doctrine, I don't know what does!)
The forum was an angry, horrible mess. I personally don't think it has ever recovered! I have basically walked away from the BDF, because there was nothing Christian about it. Then the original propagator got banned. JoanieMarie kept posting the hyper grace devotionals. I answered every one, and showed what the Bible said. Her response was that I, and others like myself who didn't agree with JP, should leave the thread. And let one person read it and get sucked into the hyper grace lie? JP showed he had no knowledge of Greek, and that he pushed his own twisted agenda in every devotional.
No, no reason to ever bring back hypergrace. It was a lie, based on a heresy, and pushed by one person (and alters) who likely was paid for his unceasing efforts, and a woman who admitted she had never read the bible. People, you don't get the big story of the Bible, focusing on a verse here or there, pulled out of context. You need to read the WHOLE counsel of God.
Hypergrace is nothing more than a 21st century heresy, based on bad hermeneutics. Basic first rule of hermeneutics, you don't make a doctrine based on one word, found one time in the Bible. So no, Undergrace, the word "hyperabounding" ὐπερπερίσσεω that appears in Romans 5:20 is not sufficient to make a doctrine out of.
"Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more," Romans 5:20 NET
Oh yech! I just came across a JP article looking up this where this word occurs. It takes me back to the anger, the fights, but most of all, the temerity of people who have NO theological education, make up a doctrine based on one word, and sell it to the people who are hurting and broken.
I believe totally in God's grace! It is amazing! But, that is not the discussion Ben wishes to open. He wants to reopen a disgusting heresy with no foundation. As for free speech, I think we had enough of this where hypergrace is concerned to last us all until eternity!
An individual joins CC, and starts proselytizing for hypergrace. Several people told me they thought he was more than one person, as he was literally posting round the clock. In fact, over 10,000 posts in less than a year. He got pretty upset when I confronted him about that, but I still haven't made 10,000 posts, and I have been a member for 7 1/2 years. Something was horribly off in the numbers.
Second, almost every post was linked to "Escape to Reality" a hyper grace website run by Paul Ellis. Who, incidentally claimed to have theological training, but his Master's Degree was in something totally different. Accounting or something. The person got chastised for constantly linking to this website, which was against forum rules at that time. Although before he was banned, he was back at posting the links.
Suddenly, the Word Faith people joined in, in particular, a woman, who I have not seen in a long time, who put up daily some so-called "devotionals" from Destined to Reign by the master (I use the term loosely) himself, Joseph Prince. I exegeted a couple of them, they had absolutely NO connection to Biblical Christianity. By this time, it seemed like the Word Faith people were getting interested. Because in fact, Joseph Prince, who "invented" this heinous doctrine came out of the Word Faith movement So, there were a lot of common threads.
I started a long post about that, based on what the Bible said. The main person arguing against me, a student in Kenneth Hagin's Rhema Bible school suddenly left. He came back briefly, and said he no longer agreed with Word Faith, or its offshoot - hyper grace.
Meanwhile, as 7seas already said, every single thread, someone brought hyper grace into the thread. Didn't matter the topic, it was soon "all about hypergrace." (Now if that doesn't sound like a personality disorder in the form of a false doctrine, I don't know what does!)
The forum was an angry, horrible mess. I personally don't think it has ever recovered! I have basically walked away from the BDF, because there was nothing Christian about it. Then the original propagator got banned. JoanieMarie kept posting the hyper grace devotionals. I answered every one, and showed what the Bible said. Her response was that I, and others like myself who didn't agree with JP, should leave the thread. And let one person read it and get sucked into the hyper grace lie? JP showed he had no knowledge of Greek, and that he pushed his own twisted agenda in every devotional.
No, no reason to ever bring back hypergrace. It was a lie, based on a heresy, and pushed by one person (and alters) who likely was paid for his unceasing efforts, and a woman who admitted she had never read the bible. People, you don't get the big story of the Bible, focusing on a verse here or there, pulled out of context. You need to read the WHOLE counsel of God.
Hypergrace is nothing more than a 21st century heresy, based on bad hermeneutics. Basic first rule of hermeneutics, you don't make a doctrine based on one word, found one time in the Bible. So no, Undergrace, the word "hyperabounding" ὐπερπερίσσεω that appears in Romans 5:20 is not sufficient to make a doctrine out of.
"Now the law came in so that the transgression may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more," Romans 5:20 NET
Oh yech! I just came across a JP article looking up this where this word occurs. It takes me back to the anger, the fights, but most of all, the temerity of people who have NO theological education, make up a doctrine based on one word, and sell it to the people who are hurting and broken.
I believe totally in God's grace! It is amazing! But, that is not the discussion Ben wishes to open. He wants to reopen a disgusting heresy with no foundation. As for free speech, I think we had enough of this where hypergrace is concerned to last us all until eternity!
-
4
-
4
- Show all
I do not mean to offend, but once again we have here ignorance on the topic of hyper-grace, specifically its origin. No one has made a whole doctrine of hyper-grace based upon the (single) word hyper found in a specific verse, but rather that verse was brought up as a refutation to people suggesting that God's grace isn't abounding. The origin is Michael Brown, who coined the term. The verse was used to show that in fact God's grace is "hyper" in that it abounds, so what was used as a derogative term was actually accurate to describing God's grace.
Hyper-grace isn't at the heart of the appeal, free speech is. We must remember that hyper-grace as a doctrine is actually perfectly fine to speak on these forums. Let me quote a moderator.
Oncefallen said, "We have never prohibited users who subscribed to either extreme from posting here but from time to time we end up having to crack down because we end up with every thread becoming overrun with the same debate no matter what subject it originally started off on."
Found here: https://christianchat.com/threads/h...ers-of-the-doctrine-on-cc.143507/post-2847130
The appeal is to remove the perceived ban, to un-sticky the hyper-grace ban, because it at this time misrepresents the open platform that CC is. It no longer serves its purpose, and the issue wasn't the doctrine itself but the conduct of the people involved in its discussion. Many of those people having been banned or moved on. It is silly, if I may be so blunt, to silence one side of the argument but more importantly, to not allow adult Christians to discuss topics that are currently being taught to the Body of Christ.
If a person is for it, great! They can defend it, express it for others to learn. If a person is against it, they can further understand where the other side if coming from, and if they see themselves as "protectors of the flock", they can dismantle it one point at a time. It is a win/win scenario.
I fail to see the logic in maintaining a ban that was for temporary issues, for over two years. Issues mind you that were sourced from certain individuals now gone. The ban itself being superfluous at this point. I highly doubt hyper-grace will be of rampant discussion to the degree it was then.
This is about free speech, open discourse, not specifically about hyper-grace. There shouldn't be a ban on a topic that Christians from many backgrounds are now encountering (for the better or worse, depending upon one's perspective). It should be discussed, no doubt.
Hyper-grace isn't at the heart of the appeal, free speech is. We must remember that hyper-grace as a doctrine is actually perfectly fine to speak on these forums. Let me quote a moderator.
Oncefallen said, "We have never prohibited users who subscribed to either extreme from posting here but from time to time we end up having to crack down because we end up with every thread becoming overrun with the same debate no matter what subject it originally started off on."
Found here: https://christianchat.com/threads/h...ers-of-the-doctrine-on-cc.143507/post-2847130
The appeal is to remove the perceived ban, to un-sticky the hyper-grace ban, because it at this time misrepresents the open platform that CC is. It no longer serves its purpose, and the issue wasn't the doctrine itself but the conduct of the people involved in its discussion. Many of those people having been banned or moved on. It is silly, if I may be so blunt, to silence one side of the argument but more importantly, to not allow adult Christians to discuss topics that are currently being taught to the Body of Christ.
If a person is for it, great! They can defend it, express it for others to learn. If a person is against it, they can further understand where the other side if coming from, and if they see themselves as "protectors of the flock", they can dismantle it one point at a time. It is a win/win scenario.
I fail to see the logic in maintaining a ban that was for temporary issues, for over two years. Issues mind you that were sourced from certain individuals now gone. The ban itself being superfluous at this point. I highly doubt hyper-grace will be of rampant discussion to the degree it was then.
This is about free speech, open discourse, not specifically about hyper-grace. There shouldn't be a ban on a topic that Christians from many backgrounds are now encountering (for the better or worse, depending upon one's perspective). It should be discussed, no doubt.
It is the discussion I would love to have. If only there wasn't a supposed ban on it. What people seem to oppose is the health and wealth aspect of some teachers of hyper-grace, but putting that aside, we still have the topic of God's grace, the blood of Christ, Jesus as High Priest, the total forgiveness of sin, and more. These are scriptural truths that no matter what term a person wishes to use to denigrate believers in God's word, can be defended biblically.
Calling this a free speech issue is just plain hypocrisy. What about the site owner’s free speech . His freedom to not have the topic discussed. Free speech goes only as far as what is public or in your home . This site is not public it is owned by someone that has been kind enough to let us discuss topics on his dime . The site owner has the site is exercising his free speech by not wanting to discuss the topic .
Blessings
Bill
Blessings
Bill
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The site owner, RoboOP, hasn't even voiced his opinion on this except maybe in Oncefallen's response (long ago). Again, they have, and I quote, "never prohibited users from either extreme from posting here." Based upon this we can conclude that it is fine to have this discussion, however at the time there needed to be a, no pun intended, grace period for people to simmer down (and ease tensions).
Two years seems sufficient, lol.
Two years seems sufficient, lol.
Are people afraid that they cannot control their temperament, if this discussion were to come up again? I just don't understand the fear. There is no hypocrisy here, I don't see how this isn't black and white. I have explained it thoroughly. I pray God works to bring understanding to all of us, and the right decision is reached.
Free speech is a misnomer. Hyper grace is virtually a cult. No reason to go through the nightmare again.
As for me not knowing the origins, the scriptures that are twisted, is pretty easy. They were expounded endlessly by hypergrace devotees. I also did a lot of independent research. And I am not the only one.
Ben, if you want to talk about hypergrace, maybe you could start your own forum, where you could speak about anything you want. That is my idea of what free speech is about! Not demanding the owner, RoboOp, reverse a policy that was enacted because of the year long nightmare that hypergrace started in the BDF.
As for me not knowing the origins, the scriptures that are twisted, is pretty easy. They were expounded endlessly by hypergrace devotees. I also did a lot of independent research. And I am not the only one.
Ben, if you want to talk about hypergrace, maybe you could start your own forum, where you could speak about anything you want. That is my idea of what free speech is about! Not demanding the owner, RoboOp, reverse a policy that was enacted because of the year long nightmare that hypergrace started in the BDF.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
Who is demanding anything of the owner? I have made an appeal to the moderators, please don't misconstrue things in favor of your agenda. The policy also is being misconstrued to be more than it was intended. I don't understand how people are overlooking this. Read the thread, it was about conduct.
I think you have dismissed too easily the part the "other side" played in the chaos that was that year.
I don't wish to specifically "talk on hyper-grace" as I do wish to discuss subjects that some may define as beliefs under that term. I don't identify as hyper-grace, but I do agree with certain aspects of it such as God's forgiveness. The only time I took on that term was because it was the label given many people at that time who agreed with certain doctrines.
If we really contemplate and consider everything I have presented, and read the hyper-grace "ban" thread, we can only come to one conclusion. It was about conduct, not the substance of the discussion. Moderators themselves saying that they do not hinder such discussion only when it gets out of hand. There has been ample time for things to simmer down.
I think you have dismissed too easily the part the "other side" played in the chaos that was that year.
I don't wish to specifically "talk on hyper-grace" as I do wish to discuss subjects that some may define as beliefs under that term. I don't identify as hyper-grace, but I do agree with certain aspects of it such as God's forgiveness. The only time I took on that term was because it was the label given many people at that time who agreed with certain doctrines.
If we really contemplate and consider everything I have presented, and read the hyper-grace "ban" thread, we can only come to one conclusion. It was about conduct, not the substance of the discussion. Moderators themselves saying that they do not hinder such discussion only when it gets out of hand. There has been ample time for things to simmer down.
If what I read in my visits to this forum, heated discussions are still the norm. Conduct is unbecoming, if you want my opinion!
Plus, there are so many other topics that have been researched by real scholars, and the differences in viewpoints discussed. Calvinism vs Arminianism comes to mind! Eschatology is another topic one can debate forever, but at least the topic is deep, with multitudes of verses to discuss.
Hypergrace is a shallow, made up piece of nonsense invented by Joseph Prince with no history and no well read and authentic peer reviewed scholars who support it.
No, I think there is an agenda here! Why not discuss the grace of God, if it interests you? Or the Trinity, or humans as the imagio deo? I’m sure I could think of all sorts of worthwhile topics to talk about. No point in dragging that poor dead hypergrace horse out of his grave again.
We don’t need shallow ill conceived out- of-context heresies dredged up again. They were incredibly divisive and drove many away from CC!
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” Romans 16:17.
Opening up hypergrace would be directly disobedient to Romans 16:17 above.
Plus, there are so many other topics that have been researched by real scholars, and the differences in viewpoints discussed. Calvinism vs Arminianism comes to mind! Eschatology is another topic one can debate forever, but at least the topic is deep, with multitudes of verses to discuss.
Hypergrace is a shallow, made up piece of nonsense invented by Joseph Prince with no history and no well read and authentic peer reviewed scholars who support it.
No, I think there is an agenda here! Why not discuss the grace of God, if it interests you? Or the Trinity, or humans as the imagio deo? I’m sure I could think of all sorts of worthwhile topics to talk about. No point in dragging that poor dead hypergrace horse out of his grave again.
We don’t need shallow ill conceived out- of-context heresies dredged up again. They were incredibly divisive and drove many away from CC!
“I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.” Romans 16:17.
Opening up hypergrace would be directly disobedient to Romans 16:17 above.
-
2
-
2
- Show all